PMK developed negatives: printable in VC paper?

[eliseo_pascual]

I have just started using PMK pyro developer (Bergger sheet film).

Though the negatives print well in graded Ilford Gallerie paper, they

are very uncontrasty in VC paper. Does the staining of these

negatives interfere with the color sensitivity of the emulsions of

the VC paper?; can they be printed in VC or are rather printed only

in graded paper?

 

Thank you for saving me the time of doing all the testing!!!,

 

Eliseo Pascual

[scott_killian1]

You shouldn't have any problems printing PMK negs on VC paper - this is the only combination of negative developer and printing that I use (Delta 100 or FP4, Saunders VC Head Enlarger on Ilford VC paper). My guess is that your contrast issues are the result of how you're filtering the negative. Are you using filters to adjust conrast?

[michael_kravit]

As with any other film developer combination, if your exposure and processing are correct, a PMK negetaive should print on a grade 2 paper.

 

If you are getting flat prints then you most likey underdeveloped your PMK negatives.

 

Have you tried printing with a higher contrast filter?

 

Mike

[dhananjay_n]

Actually, you are correct in your assessment. VC papers are sensitive to blue and green light. The ratio of blue to green light determines the contrast - the greater the amount of green light, the softer the contrast. The yellow green stain on the negative is proportional to silver density and thus acts as a variable contrast mask over the negative. In other words, the highlight areas are printed with more green light compared to the shadow areas. Thus your shadows will show greater local contrast, while your highlights will show less local contrast. You could try Pyrocat HD which produces a more brown stain and is supposed to be less problematic than PMK. Or utilize graded papers. Cheers, DJ

[jennifer_waak]

If you read the book of Pyro, you will see that Gordon Hutchings raves on and on about the use of VC papers with PMK and encourages everyone to try it. Seeing how he basically invented the formula, it seems reasonable that this should be an workable combination. He does say, however, that "negatives calibrated for printing with graded paper will print softer on variable contrast paper". He also offers some tips for printing. I have a flight to catch or I'd include some of those tips, but the book is good reading anyway if you are going to be using Pyro.

 

 

-Jen

[psychophoto]

I've been very pleased with the results of printing PMK negs on VC paper - more so than the same negatives on graded paper. With VC papers, you still have the option of split-contrast printing and things like that, and with that on top of the self-masking effect of PMK stain on VC papers, I see no overwhelming reason to not print pyro negs on VC paper.

[c_p_goerz]

PMK doesn't work well at all on VC especially in the bright areas. The stain tends to overmask the highlights and makes them drab in comparison with the rest of the print. Stick to graded with PMK for best results. For the longest time I could never understand why I couldn't get a decent print on VC till I read the 'Edge of Darkness' book. If you want to use VC then develop in DiXactol as its stain isn't quite the same colour and makes VC use possible, otherwise stick to the graded/pmk combo.

 

You may think that using graded means having 30 boxes of paper in the darkroom but I seem to do OK with assorted sizes of grade 2+3, I do have assorted emulsions for cooler or warmer tones as required by the image. Toning with VC was always problematic for me due to split toning, I love having rich seleniumed shadows that match the colour of the highlights and VC never really delivered that, the whole image tended to go purple/pink almost before the print was even in colour.

 

CP Goerz

[rayfc]

I have had tremendous luck by split filter printing my PMK negatives. It makes a world of difference over single filter exposures.

[neil_miller2]

From my own experiences and from what I have read in previous threads in this forum and others, using PMK with a cold light head and variable contrast papers leads to prints that lack contrast unless you select g3 or g4 and/or compensate to a large degree in development. With my set-up (cathomag, vc papers) I have to overdevelop to achieve more contrast and use a higher grade of paper, and - often - selenium tone to get a bit more contrast.

 

If you go through the threads you will find that a lot of people recommend using other flavours of PMK (eg ABC) to achieve a sufficient degree of contrast.

 

regards,

Neil.

[david_haynes]

I've been using PMK for almost 10 years now and what I've found

is that a negative to be printed on VC paper using my Zone VI VC

head (the one with separately adjustable green and blue

florescent tubes) requires at least 30 percent more development

for the same contrast as with graded papers.

 

The green/yellow stain seems to sop up the contrasty blue light,

requiring much longer exposures as well.

 

The problem is not as bad printing with filters and a condenser

head, but it is there just the same.

 

My testing using Galerie papers produced much shorter

development times with PMK than Hutchins' book

recommended. However, his times seemed about right for VC

papers.

 

That said, I've never been able to get as satisifying print from a

PMK neg on VC paper as on Galerie or my favorite Zone VI

Bromide Graded Brilliant paper.

 

Hope this helps.

[philip_sweeney]

CP Goerz: who is the author of "The Edge of Darkness" ?

[j.w.]

Barry Thornton authored 'Edge of Darkness'.

[c_p_goerz]

Beat me to it, its a great book that explodes a whole lot of myths about enlarging and what affects the image etc. You'll never see me with a lightweight tripod again!!!

 

CP Goerz

[ed_pierce2]

I've just started using PMK and am finding that a neg which prints well on a grade 2 graded paper needs a much higher (#4) filter with VC paper, with MY light source. I've been testing the PMK by making two negs; one to be developed in my usual HC-110 and one in PMK. By proofing them together on graded #2, I've got the development down so they look practically identical on the graded paper. But they print much differently on VC.

 

As noted before, the yellow stain is just like using a yellow filter, which by reducing the amount of blue light, reduces the contrast.

 

I think that there is such a wide range of variables with light sources, filters, developers that it's impossible to make an accurate prediction about how VC materials will work. You have to try it. Sorry but nobody can save you the time of doing all the testing. Thier results won't work for you. The best they can do is get you in the ball park.

 

You have options. You can develop your PMK negs to print specifically on VC. I hate to do that. Or you can find a way to get more contrast when printing with VC. I assume you've tried the highest filter. As noted above, split printing is a great idea, but if you've tried the highest filter in your set, that's all you're going to get out of those filters.

 

You could try split printing with a green #58 and a blue #47B. If you try this I suggest you get a .6 nuetral density filter to sandwich with the blue one...the paper is much more sensitive to blue than green.

 

You could also try a higher contrast developer or a lower dilution.

 

Speaking of PMK with Bergger film, I've been getting tiny pinholes in the emulsion. Not a lot, just one every 3 negatives or so, but they always seem to be in areas where they can't be fixed, like right in the middle of a perfectly smooth clear sky. Aside from that, I've been getting slightly better high value separation with the PMK over my usual HC110.