What Did I Do. (pyro) Question ?

[dustym]

I processed 2 5x4 negs in a paterson orbital processor, I did not use the manufacturers guidlines instead I mixed to guidlines mainly used in the USA 1:2:100 in the UK the Pyro I use is 1:1:50.

I processed for 11 mins constant agitation the results were stunning , much better in comparison in the shadow detail and the highlights difficult to judge as I have not printed yet.

Shot on Fomapan 100 at an EI of 64.

Any help as to why I got better negs would be really helpful as I do not have a great deal of knowledge in the this field or the appropriate equipment to measure.

I usually process at 8 mins constant at 1:1:50


rgds
Dusty

[Jim MacKenzie]

1:1:50 is the same as 2:2:100 so what you did was use half as much developing agent and the same of everything else as you usually do.

Shooting at EI64 is overexposure and you effectively pulled the development by using a weaker developer so it may be that you compensated correctly (if accidentally) for the overexposure.

It could be that for your working style, this is a better combination.

[Brian Ellis]

"I processed for 11 mins constant agitation the results were stunning , much better in comparison in the shadow detail and the highlights difficult to judge as I have not printed yet. . . . Any help as to why I got better negs would be really helpful as I do not have a great deal of knowledge in the this field or the appropriate equipment to measure."

"Better" in comparison to what? Better than the negatives you got using other developers? Better than the negatives you got by ingorning the manufacturer's guidelines? Are you asking why pyro is "better" than something else?

As an aside, how do you know anything is better until you've made some prints? I really thought my pyro (PMK) negatives looked cool and if I framed and displayed my negatives I would have continued using pyro. But after extensive testing with prints I concluded that the prints made from my pryo negatives were indistinguishable from prints made from the identical negatives processed in D76 1-1 (for these tests I made duplicate negatives of various scenes, then processed one set in pyro and the other in D76 1-1, then made prints from both). Not to suggest that this would necessarily be a universal experience with all materials under all conditions but it was mine.

[dustym]

Of course I have compared too other negative quality using 4 other developers and similair scenes and conditions, as my post indicated Im speaking of my findings in the negative state, if the negative looks good and well balanced it should print well this I have based on past experience.

To answer your question, no Im not asking if pyro is better than anything else I Just voiced my findings on the a change in dilution of the developer and how it affected my negatives.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Well, when all is said and done, if it works for you it must be right. I use PMK occasionally, because it's cheap. twenty bucks for 50 liters of working strenth solution at 1:2:100. I can't beat that. Otherwise, I use the old standby - D-76 1:1. It still works well after many decades. All of my FP-4+ film, however, goes in the PMK. That's where it excels.