Anybody using Pyrocat-HD or MC as a Compensating Developer?

[sanking]

what do you mean here sandy? you would use other developing formulas?

i print in my DR cause my scanner hates me. now if i get some love from my scanner with this technique i may never be forced back to the DR. BUT if i use the wet DR on VC papers this will work nicely?

i will try it for sure....sounds great.

thanks

eddie

Eddie,

What I meant was that if were exposing and developing to print in the wet darkroom I would use BTZS or Zone type controls to get the best negative possible. It was not meant to be a comment about Pyrocat-HD versus other developer formulas.

Sandy

[jim kitchen]

This page may be useful...

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/De.../formulas.html

jim k

[Keith Tapscott.]

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle !

TMY at ISO 250, Divided Pyrocat HD, 5 min, 75 degrees, 1:10.


I placed the wood on the chair on Zone II - III, and let the rest go where it may. The inside walls fell on Zone V, the grass in the yard outside fell on Zone XI ! The clouds in the sky fell on Zone... XIV !

Another interior with deep shadows and full window-light from outdoors. The statue on the table, I placed on Zone III. The carpeting on the stairs fell 8 zones higher, and the white paint on the steps another 2 zones beyond that. Zone 13 is way beyond what any sane photographer would waste a sheet of film and still expect to capture useable texture. I didn't know that the film could hold that many zones.

Foreground in the shade, clouds lit by full sun. No filter was used. The fence was placed on III, and the clouds fell as high as Zone XI. So what ? Maybe a yellow filter would have made the clouds look more dimensional, but the brightness range was irrelevant.

All of these negatives scanned so easily, I had to increase contrast to make them feel like light. The amazing thing to me, is that there was no need for stand, semi-stand, flash, dilution, HDR merging, blending, multiple exposures... no incantations or rituals of any kind !

Watching the development process with an Infra Red monocular, this process looks like Pt/Pd: the images just pop out when you place the film into bath B. I haven't had this much (photographic) fun in a long time !

Next time, I will give more continuous agitation: these negatives have a slightly mottled look. Five minutes isn't a lot of time, especially when you tray-develop a lot of sheets at the same time as I do. I will increase the dilution to 1:20, and lengthen the time a bit in each developer.

Thanks so much for sharing this technique ! It's been around for a long time, but it took me until now to pick it up.

Ken, the two-bath developer you have used has retained detail in the shadows and highlights, but the tones looks very flat, grey and ugly. If I made a print that looked like it appears on my PC, I wouldn`t be at all pleased with it. I think that you could get much more pleasing contrast with Pyrocat as a single-solution developer or with a soft-working Metol developer like Perceptol diluted 1+3.
Sorry Ken, but I just don`t like the tonality of those images.

[Bob McCarthy]

Ken, the two-bath developer you have used has retained detail in the shadows and highlights, but the tones looks very flat, grey and ugly. If I made a print that looked like it appears on my PC, I wouldn`t be at all pleased with it. I think that you could get much more pleasing contrast with Pyrocat as a single-solution developer or with a soft-working Metol developer like Perceptol diluted 1+3.
Sorry Ken, but I just don`t like the tonality of those images.

I think you missed the point. The idea was the capture the full range of data so it could be refined later in photoshop. There is not enough data attached to the post to do it properly, but the original file would be a walk in the park

Quick and Dirty - this literally took 2 minutes (1 minute each).

bob

[Keith Tapscott.]

I think you missed the point. The idea was the capture the full range of data so it could be refined later in photoshop. There is not enough data attached to the post to do it properly, but the original file would be a walk in the park

Quick and Dirty - this literally took 2 minutes (1 minute each).

bob

It still looks flat to me. If you like prints with a lot of grey scale, then you will be pleased with the results. I prefer a bit more contrast, particularly in the mid-tones.

[Bob McCarthy]

It still looks flat to me. If you like prints with a lot of grey scale, then you will be pleased with the results. I prefer a bit more contrast, particularly in the mid-tones.

of course it looks flat, but my point is the information is there

If I increase the contrast ramps more in this small sample, it pixilates badly. But with local adjustments it can be anything you want.

You've apparently have not worked much with digital editing. Not a slam, but just trying to encourage you to understand, contrast is a choice and the amount is an option if all the data is there in the first place.

I'm not working with the original file, but this small, highly compressed sample the OP put up.

bob

[Keith Tapscott.]

Bob, if you can radically push the contrast up in Photoshop without losing the details, then I might find the image acceptable. I certainly wouldn`t like the actual print to look like it appears on my PC monitor. I have not worked much with digital editing because I make silver-prints.

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob, if you can radically push the contrast up in Photoshop without losing the details, then I might find the image acceptable. I certainly wouldn`t like the actual print to look like it appears on my PC monitor. I have not worked much with digital editing because I make silver-prints.

The details are there. let me provide some additional examples.

A is darkening the room where the photographer resides, the contrast between the shooting room and the subject room has increased

B is increasing the contrast in the subject room independent of the shooting room

These are small files made from a highly compressed original (posted by OP).

While the matter "if they are art" is not mine. The photographers vision is acheivable in this way, and in a way normal development can not always provide.

bob

[Keith Tapscott.]

The details are there. let me provide some additional examples.

A is darkening the room where the photographer resides, the contrast between the shooting room and the subject room has increased

B is increasing the contrast in the subject room independent of the shooting room

These are small files made from a highly compressed original (posted by OP).

While the matter "if they are art" is not mine. The photographers vision is acheivable in this way, and in a way normal development can not always provide.

bob

OK, thanks for explaining. BTW, is the ceiling grey or white?

[Bob McCarthy]

OK, thanks for explaining. BTW, is the ceiling grey or white?

a digital darkroom person would say

"what shade would you like it to be"

bob