robert_boyer

Great article but being the skeptical person (good advice given in

the article) that I am, this guy uses t400cn, filters the water in

what i guess would be his humple hotel room an then does a c41

processing thing. Something is wrong here who the hell does there own

c41 processing in the middle of a war zone? either the film or the

self water filtering processing thing is bullshit.

I have been using PMK and VC paper for a good 2 years now for a lot of my photo work but was looking through some early experiments and some things puzzled me now that I am begining to see how this combo works. Was wondering if anyone else has done any research on some things that I was thinking about.

 

<p>

 

When I started to play with PMK I was (and still am) using a lot of APX 100 w/ Rodinal. The APX was not a popular combo with PMK so I decided to go with PXP. Something that I knew how it responded and stained well. I have switched to D100 and/or FP4+ for my medium speed requirements with PMK but when reviewing some of my earlier negs I was wondering why PXP with a blue base does not print with a high contrast on VC paper, even in conventional developers it seems to be normal to low contrast based on visual appearance. In PMK it displays similar properties with films having a clear base. Why doesn't the blue base change the printing properties?

I have always read the questions regarding pyro and PMK as well as

responses that vary from fanatical to damning with amusement. I will

try to give some of my experience that may be helpful to anyone who

has toyed with pyro or are thinking about it. I think I am actually a

fanatic but instead of telling everyone how magical it is I will try

to give some practical advice. Due to a personality flaw I hava a

problem ditching things until I have completely mastered them, I

think many B+W photographers have this tendency.

 

<p>

 

A few years ago I decided I wasn't quite happy with my rodinal APX100

combination because of the inability to reproduce skin tones,

specular catch lights in eye's, and other highlights in portaits with

the seperation and subtle gradation I was after. Don't get me wrong

that combination is good, but I wanted more. I remembered reading in

various places many pyro users raving about the highlight seperation

that they were getting. I decided to see what PMK could do, so I

bought the book, some chemicals, and some HP5, FP4, and Pan F. I

started to play around and did see some of the things that made pyro

different but it was not near as good or easy as most fanatics

declare from my standpoint.

 

<p>

 

No disrespect intended but I think Gordon Hutchings left some

critical details out of his book for People just getting into PMK,

especially with VC paper.

 

<p>

 

When using VC paper:

 

<p>

 

1. Forget everything you have ever learned about when making prints.

This is going to be a new experience that you have to re-learn from a

visual stanpoint.

 

<p>

 

2. Unlike other negatives, highlights change slower that shadows when

you make exposure adjustments. This translates into changing exposure

also changes contrast at the same time. more exposure = more

contrast, less exposure = less contrast. If the highligts look just

about right but the shadows look way way too dark do not reach for a

lower contrast filter, try less exposure first (Sometimes a lot less).

 

<p>

 

3. All of the instant reactions to test prints that you have made

with other negatives over the years are absolutely wrong for pyro

negatives. You will have to readjust your reactions and visual

evaluation over again for pyro on VC paper.

 

<p>

 

4.When learning to readjust your exposure/contrast reactions.

Deliberately make a print that is way too light for a reference. You

will be amazed that the highlights won't look flat white. Then make

it darker until you get good blacks. If you cannot do this without

bringing the highlights down into the upper midtones then increase

the contrast a little bit and try again.

 

<p>

 

5. If you react the way you normally would, you will be way off.

 

<p>

 

Once you get a feel for this the way you did with regular negatives

getting to the right exposure/contrast will be much less tricky and

you will understand how magical pyro/PMK is (Think the best print you

ever made, the one that just glows. Now imagine that any negative at

all can look like that. That is just about what PMK is like once you

readjust your printing habits)

 

<p>

 

I happen to like all of the Ilford films and Verichrome pan processed

around what Gordon Hutchings recommends as N-1. They print great on

G3-G31/2 VC paper and great on my huge stock of Ektalure when

appropriate.

 

<p>

 

email me if you have any specific questions for a one time pyro hater

turned true fanatic over the last 2 years.

I have been using patterson plastic reels to process film for years, they are usually very reliable but when it gets colder and less humid I am finding loading 120 film extremely difficult. Does anybody have any secret recipes when the weather makes 120 film super "curly"? Is stainless any easier? What brands if any are the best stainless tanks for daylight processing?

 

<p>

 

thanks

rwb

Thanks for the input on brown toner questions everyone.

 

<p>

 

Although XTOL is my developer for almost everything now, I am playing with PMK on the films that I use and just started to experiment. I have started testing with TX because I know it so well in a lot of developers. A couple of things that I have noted are

 

<p>

 

1. The curve shape seems way different in PMK for TX than anything I have ever seen

 

<p>

 

2. The fog seems to be much more using PMK so my printing time for max black has gone up.

 

<p>

 

3. PMK seems to make any lens flare at all really bad, I lose all contrast and have to print at grade 4. I have a lens that is really great except against the light where it flares a little. With PMK this lens is useless in backlit situations.

 

<p>

 

Has anyone else seen the same kinds of things?

I am trying to get a really brown/black look in my shadows like most older prints that I have seen. I use selenium mostly so I have no idea what to expect with these. I tried kodak poly toner 1+9 and it looks too cool so I am going to up the solution, however I was wondering if anyone else gets a bunch of insoluble crap in the solution when they use it? Also what is the shelf life of the working solotion?

 

<p>

 

thanks

rwb

I usually use selenium or polysulfide but need some old looking prints so I picked up a bottle of kodak brown towner. The bottle does not seem to give any guidance regarding dilution temp and time. Does anyone out there use this stuff to produce brownish old looking prints have any starting points for me.

 

<p>

 

thanks

rwb

I use D76 1+1 (Sprint) and XTOL 1+2 (still experimenting) I seem to

see differences in these two films with the developers mentioned.

HP5+ seems to need longer development times that TRI-X and TRI-X

seems to be better looking and eaiser for me to print when pushed two

stops. I really haven't tried to quantify the difference but TRI-X

seems to have a distinct mid tone look and may shoulder off more

quickly than HP5+. HP5+ tends to look more linear and have more edge

shapness esp. in XTOL 1+2 or higher. Just my two cents.

I am having a consistent problem with Kodak Photoflo 200. If I mix a large batch with tap water there seems to be crap growing in it after about a week. I don't really want to go with distiled water for large batches, has anyone else had and solved this problem?

I have just started to use sprint chemistry and have had great results so far. All of it is extremely easy to use liquid chemistry with mixing ratios that are easy enough to remember. The D76 1+1 equivilent developer has given me very consistent results, the rapid fixer is cheap and seems to last a long time (testing with edwal fixer test). The fixer remover is very economical, and the paper developer has never worn out at 1+9 dilution during long printing sessions with very consistent print tone and contrast from begining to end.

 

<p>

 

I haven't seen many comments about sprint chemistry on this or other forums. Has anyone else gotten good results with this stuff or am I the only one. I am wondering why anybody goes through the pain of mixing real D76 or powdered hypo clearing agent when the sprint seems to give identical results.

I have great luck with holding TX and VP after exposure and before

processing. I have also had horrible results holding TMZ for even a

couple of weeks after exposure. I have no personal results with the

APX films but have talked to others that have said that they have bad

latent image keeping properties.

 

<p>

 

rwb

I have been trying to standardize my development on XTOL since I experimented with it last year. I have really liked the results on the films that I use and am using a dillution of 1+2. While I was still playing with it and finding my development times I ruined a couple of rolls of film during different processing sessions, they were really underdeveloped. It only happened with one batch of developer on 3 different rolls so I thought that somehow I may have mixeded incorrectly or contaminated it somehow and continued getting my times down with a fresh batch. Everything was going fine for a couple of months and now it happend again in two different processing sessions with the same batch of developer. I have never had this happen with my TMAX, HC110, or sprint (D76) in years of using them.

 

<p>

 

Has anyone else experinced getting underdeveloped results on certain batches of XTOL every once in a while? Does Kodak have anything to say, is it easy to contaminate compared to other developers? I am rethinking my decision of standarizing on XTOL if it means I end up with super flat/under developed film every couple of months.

 

<p>

 

thanks

rwb

I have had great luck processing my TMY and Delta 100 over the last few months. For my process/equipment I seem to get a tiny bit more speed that the EI on the film box by using XTOL 1+2 temp/times as recommended by kodak and good contrast. When I decided to try XTOL with Plus-X at EI 125 (usually processed in ID11) my negatives seem really thick in the shadows and midtones by about a stop maybe a little more when processed using Kodak recommeded time/temp. The negatives are not overly contrasty. Plus-X seems to be more like EI250 or my meter suddenly became broken. Has anybody else seen a dramatic increase in speed using XTOL 1+2 and Plus-X?