Thanks for clarifying that - that’s good news in that it might simply mean you need to significantly extend development time with WD2H. That would make sense to me relative to WD2D since WD2H is twice as dilute, but it would be surprising to me if the WD2H development time needed to be much longer than PMK since they contain basically the same concentrations of developing agents and the pH of WD2H should be higher than PMK.Originally Posted by Mark J
I hope you are able to figure this out.
(Edit : this reply to Mark, not to Michael ) :
Oh I already did a print from one of the negs exposed with a slightly more concentrated mix.
It was fine, but the subject wasn't all that demanding in terms of range or subject properties.
The problem will be when I have subjects like bright clouds or texture on high-value water, where I need the negs to be showing a decent level of staining to get the Pyro advantages.
I'm not intending to go ahead with a Dev process that only uses about 2/3rd of the potential neg density range. I'm not into hauling around 5x7" gear just to get some 'decent' pics.
ps. I've been using PMK for 26 years , I know what the neg should look like, and given WD2H is not that different, it should look at least close , but with a different stain colour.
Thanks Michael, yes.
I'll have a good look at the numbers ref WD2D and WD2H and have another go with an 'educated guess' at what might work.
I will probably also try the experiment with PMK 'A' plus the Sodium carbonate 'B' for kicks.
One factor in all of this that may be skewing the results, is that John was exclusively using FP4+ for all of his work and experiments, and it's clear that FP4+ stains more than Fomapan 200.
If you really want some range, you can split the developer. I've done this with PMK. Without a rinse, soak film in PURE SOLUTION A for 3 minutes, then use Solution B diluted for various times as needed. It's like split D23 or others. Strong shadow details and huge dynamic range. You can shoot indoors and the details coming through the windows won't saturate.
Well, if you use PMK A with a carbonate B it’s essentially WD2H but it’s always worth a try. With the higher alkalinity of carbonate fog and non-imagewise stain would be expected to increase, but I don’t know by how much. Presumably that’s why John included a small amount of restrainer.
Let us know what you find. It’s possible there’s something Fomapan 200 doesn’t like about WD2H, although I’m not sure what that could be.
Aside from the stain colour and its effect on density - which was part of the interest.
https://sandykingphotography.com/an-...ng-developers/
The working solutions of PMK and WD2H are virtually identical (+/- slop) in their part A composition. The difference is the alkali. If you replace the PMK alkali with carbonate you have WD2H.
Incidentally be careful with contemporary writing about tanning/staining developers. It’s mostly regurgitating ancient mythology.
I suspected that you would eventually turn against the subject, Michael.
Good that you are, however, warning us callow impressionable youths against the dangers of getting too tied up in staining developers.
What's also interesting is that almost all of the characteristics attributed to the stain really have more to do with low metol concentrations at specific pH ranges (and/ or P:dihydroxybenzene ratios) - and that this has been known about for decades within the industry (and commercially exploited), but is apparently much less interesting than dying your negs a funny colour with a potentially rather risky poison. There's a lot that could be done with Beutler derivatives - but that might require a much more clear eyed approach to how visual outcomes really relate to the chemistry of the developer rather than mantric repetition of various weekend workshop gurus.
Mark,
I’m not turning against the subject and I think it’s a worthwhile investigation. Hopefully you are able to sort out WD2H.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks