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

[eddie]

thanks david.

[Ken Lee]

On Flickr, there are a lot of photos which have been tagged as "two-bath".

See http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=two-bath&w=all

Many of them are devoid of any obvious flatness or blandness of tone.

Here's someone who seems to get quite normal looking images, using the Thornton 2-Bath developer:

http://www.stevemphoto.com/photograp.../05/index.html

[David Karp]

. . . I've also struggled to avoid too much contrast in my own 120 negs, since I have the luxury of "desert" light much of the year.

Ed,

I think that 2 baths are ideal for the lighting you work in most of the year, and especially when using roll film. Although I use 2 baths in all light, I think that one great benefit for me is that they work so well in the harsh light I have here in CA much of the time.

[Ken Lee]

If you're concerned about low contrast with Divided Pyrocat, consider what Sandy has shared on the APUG site (emphasis added).

In considering changes bear the following in mind.

1, I would recommend that you simplify matters by not changing the time in either Solution A or Solution B. But if you change the time stick with it as it will simplify the other adjustment you can make.

2. Contrast is controlled by the amount of reducer that can be absorbed by the emulsion in Solution A. Assuming you stay with 6 minutes and 75F, using a stronger dilution will increase final negative contrast, using a weaker one will reduce final negative contrast. In other words, if 1:20 is the norm, a 1:10 dilution will give you more contrasty negatives, a 1:40 dilution will give negatives with less contrast. I think 1:10 is a good starting point for tank development with intermitten agitation, 1:20 is for rotary agitation.

3. Effective film speed is controlled by the time in solution B. What happens is that the reducer in the emulsion is quickly used up in the highlight areas, and since it can not be replenished as in normal single bath processing, the negative builds contrast rapdily when it goes into the solution, but in about three minutes all of the reducer is used up so that the build up of density in the highlights stops. However, the negative will continue to build up density in the mid-tones shadows throughout development, which increases effective film speed. So if six minutes is the norm for Solution B, four minutes will give less effective film speed, ten minutes will give more effective film speed.

[sanking]

Scenes of great contrast can be captured on B&W film with several methods. One method is simply to shorten time of development, another is to develop in very dilute solutions for a long time with minimal agitation. Both methods work, but the second method generally give slightly higher film speed than the former. Water bath development has also been used but I personally have not had much success with this method.

The method I have used in the past has been very dilute developer solutions with minimal agitation. However, it is necessary to take notes and time development because even in very dilute solutions the film can develop to a high contrast.

More recently I have been using two-bath development to control contrast in scenes of great contrast. What I have found is that there is not very much difference in the look of a negative developed this way compared to one developed for the necessary amount of time with a dilute solution with minimal agitation, except for the fact that long development times seem to add a bit more B+F to the negative.

If you print such a negative straight, with no adjustment for contrast, the print will probably look flat because of the very long tonal range of the negative.Silver printers use various methods of split filtration to increase mid-tone contrast while still retaining detail in the shadows and highlights. Most processes do not allow this kind of adjustment, however, and the result is that the mid-tones often print rather flat with negatives that have captured a very long range of subject brightness. Many people like this look and praise the long tonal range of their prints, even though they may be rather flat in the mid-tones.

Clearly scanning the negative and adjusting tonal values allows for a lot more control, both with inkjet printing and with alternative processes with a digital negative.


Sandy King

[Ken Lee]

Thanks Maestro. Beautifully stated !

[Mike1234]

Bottom line is all the important detail must be recorded. If it's not there it can never be printed back in. But others have really already stated this.

[jim kitchen]

Excellent discussion...

For your files, Bruce Barnbaum discusses compensating development and divided development, within his 3rd Edition "The Art of Photography," Chapter 9. It is an interesting read with detailed instructions, where Bruce talks to HC-110 throughout the discussion. The thought and the process are there.

As sided note, Bruce mentions that his experience shows a negative can contain information from Zone O through to Zone 18. Bruce demonstrated this compensating procedure and how compensating development could capture most of the zones, during one of his lectures a few years ago. The resulting negative was very thin, the contact print extremely flat and lifeless, where Bruce the Master Printer that he happens to be, produced a wondrous exquisite print.

If anyone has that text, you might want to rummage through it...

Lastly, since I cannot find Metol north of the 49th, I would like to ask whether anyone experimented with XTOL, using it as a divided developer? I will try that for fun.

jim k

[David Karp]

I thought of trying to make a divided Mytol, but never got around to it.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Many people like this look and praise the long tonal range of their prints, even though they may be rather flat in the mid-tones.



Sandy King

I thoroughly dislike compressed midtones and that flat-look in silverprints. My preference is for well separated midtones which I find gives the print more impact, even if it means some sacrifice to one end or both ends of the tonal range.
I guess that for digital prints and the making of digital negatives, things can be adjusted to obtain the desired effect in a way that is not possible with the traditional wet process.