Pyro stain.

Would it be feasable to develop to a high contrast, bleach, and then get a

relatively good print from a pyro negative? Has anyone tried this? I am

wondering if it will give me a print with an interesting non-silver character.

Thanks.

I did it once to show that the pyro stain was an image, not just a dye, for an article in Photo Techniues "More Pyrotechnics". Not something I would do for art or pleasure, but it can be done. You may wind up with a negative that's hard to print due to fog. You might try Pyrocat MC at 1:1:50. Consider using grade 4 paper or the highest VC filter you have. If you have a dichroic enlarger try the Cyan. Nobody uses it for anything else, but it is after all minus red.

Thanks. I stand-developed technical pan in 510-pyro at 1:500. Turned out to be very high contrast, as should be expected I guess, but not without some midtones. I then bleached it in ferricyanide and fixer. Here's a scan of the stain image alone. I think it will print OK, but until I print it I can't be sure. The scan looks very unsharp, I am not sure why.<div></div>

Hi Dan.

 

How long did you develop? I get good results with TP/510-Pyro 1:500 20min/70F semi-stand. Your scan doesn't look too contrasty, or too soft to me. Interesting experiment, thanks for sharing.

 

Jay

I stand developed overnight at 1:500, which means developing almost to document film contrast, as I found out. Some uneven development, but not too bad.

 

The stain is not of high contrast, so it's fine to scan, but haven't printed it yet.

How do you find the tones of techpan compared to conventional films? I have a feeling techpan is icky for most things. I don't think its midtones are that good.

This is a scan of an unbleached neg from that roll:

http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00IFcL-32695084.jpg

 

Since the scanner couldn't get through the dense areas, they look wiped out, but not entirely empty. It wouldn't be possible to get that effect in printing, though.

Hi Dan.

 

I really only use TP for portraits in VERY flat light, and even then, there are other films that I prefer, like TMY. TP is unique, and used with a deep red filter produces an effect close to some IR films, without all the grain. I definitely consider TP a special effects film, and your bleaching experiments might lead to something useful, or at the very least, interesting. You might consider repeating your experiment with a fast, grainy film, and see if the effect is markedly different. Thanks again, and have fun!

 

Jay

I'll try. Jay is it possible to formulate a staining developer similar to Diafine. I find that at least 510-pyro doesn't push too well at least at the default dilution.

 

I think Diafine, or Microphen are probably the best pushing developers I found, and I have to push often.

If you want a non-silver dye image, then why not just use XP2super and put it through the C41 process?

Hi Dan.

 

Pushing is a loaded subject. If the goal is to improve shadow detail without increasing contrast, I believe there is a real limit to how much speed one can extract from any given film, and that limit is usually on the order of 1/3-1/2 stop above ISO, and generally comes with penalties in grain and gradation. If, on the other hand, the goal is to get the best possible gradation from underexposed negatives, I think 510-Pyro does very well. 510-Pyro negs that look unprintably thin can produce surprisingly full-bodied prints, due to the image stain that is sometimes invisible to the naked eye, especially in the shadows. A friend recently developed a roll of Delta 3200 in 510-Pyro, and mistakenly used a 1:200 dilution in place of his planned 1:100 dilution. The negs looked so thin that he nearly tossed them, but decided to try printing one image that he especially liked. With some effort, he managed to make a beautiful, grainless 8x10 print from a 645 neg. Even though the shadows looked completely empty on the light table, the print showed sharp, crisp detail in the shadows. If you're willing to experiment a little, I think you'll find 510-Pyro a good developer for push processing. If not, there's nothing wrong with using another developer that you're comfortable with in that application. Good luck.

 

Jay

I shoot in low or very low light. Here's an example: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1618311&ref=author

 

I just want something printable shot at 1600-3200, with hopefully not very hot highlights. I was thinking of something like pyro Diafine split developer. Thanks.

Hi Dan.

 

Cool image! You might try shooting a test roll and experimenting with dilution and agitation and see if you can get something worked out. Good luck!

 

Jay

Hi. I tried pushing Tri-X to around 3200. 1:100, 70 degrees, one agitation every three minutes for 30 minutes. The film is drying. The midtones are too weak for many frames on that roll, and that seems like a long enough development time, no? The leader is dense, but the rebate markins are not. I am not sure if I am patient enough to develop for longer than that, other than stand development for two hours or overnight. Should I try that with 1:200 or 1:300/500 for EI 3200 or 6400?

 

Thanks.

Hi Dan.

 

I've never tried to push TX to 3200, but 30min of development with the 1:100 dilution would be a lot of development for normally exposed film. Stained negs can be very deceptive, so you might consider printing them before you make any further adjustments. If you decide you want more development with shorter times, try a 1:50 or 1:25 dilution.

 

I don't have the guts to trust any important images to stand development, but if you decide to try, you'll have to find the best dilution by trial and error. Staining developers don't exhaust the same way non-staining developers do, and stain formation continues even when there is very little active developer present, so if you plan to leave your film in developer overnight, I'd recommend a very dilute solution, like 1:500 for starters, and a low processing temp, in the 65F range, and adjust from there as needed, but don't be surprised if you see streaks or other development defects.

 

I might give this line of experimentation a try myself, and I'll let you know if I come up with anything useful. Good luck.

 

 

Jay