Reformed Pyro Workers

Ken Smith wrote:

I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro
developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but
came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc.

And just how are you doing this? What method of exposure and development?

Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows.
So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed.
However now I have noticed that I've been progressively slipping into
a greyness, and will have to bump the contrast up a little, to get a
sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability
that contrast provides.

I'm confused. What do you mean by "bump up the contrast"? How, exactly
would you, or do you, do this?

Is there a question here? I know pyro works like magic in some pretty
tough lighting, but my use of it for most landscapes has been a
mistake. Now if I bring up the contrast, I'll probably be back where I
started with HC-110. Any thoughts from reformed pyro users? The look
of my prints has so upset me lately that I swear I'm shooting more
poorly than ever, making confusing and distracting images, in an
mistaken attempt to show too much probably. I'm trying to do
landscapes in strong light, and without traditional composition. The
documentary/geological survey approach in all it's anti-scenic
splendor.

Pardon me if I disagree :-) Timothy O'Sullivan in particular and
several other geological survey documentarians are not what I would
consider "anti-scenic." They well knew how to use collodian processes
and limitations to great artistic and scenic effect.

A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old
fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and
brilliant whites.

Sounds like a issue of the subject matter and scene lighting, not of the
developer. Got some examples?

I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro
developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but
came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc.
Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows.
So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed.
However now I have noticed that I've been progressively slipping into
a greyness, and will have to bump the contrast up a little, to get a
sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability
that contrast provides.

I must admit, I'm feeling a little stupid these days still messing
with developers. That's an issue that it seems to me should have been
resolved long ago, but well, from reading this group, I gather it's
not too uncommon.

Is there a question here? I know pyro works like magic in some pretty
tough lighting, but my use of it for most landscapes has been a
mistake. Now if I bring up the contrast, I'll probably be back where I
started with HC-110. Any thoughts from reformed pyro users? The look
of my prints has so upset me lately that I swear I'm shooting more
poorly than ever, making confusing and distracting images, in an
mistaken attempt to show too much probably. I'm trying to do
landscapes in strong light, and without traditional composition. The
documentary/geological survey approach in all it's anti-scenic
splendor. A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old
fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and
brilliant whites.

In article ,
(Ken Smith) wrote:

I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro
developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but
came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc.
Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows.
So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed.
However now I have noticed that I've been progressively slipping into
a greyness, and will have to bump the contrast up a little, to get a
sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability
that contrast provides.

HC 110 in dilute form is a fabulous developer in and of itself, the key is not misunderstanding
that any developer can produce gorgeous results, I have many great images produced
from a miriad of developers. Its fun to test all them or at least as many as one wishes.
Gaining fluency with one developer film combo, though is a major benefit. The type of Pyro
I state very infatically, will produce better or worse results. PMK is a good
choice but requires added exposure "in general" to produce optimal
results, there are many tricks to using it effectively and some films work better.

Considerations:

One prewet film,...the developer will take quicker. IMOP
Two break the developer total quantity into two parts and change it mid way through
process insuring fresh chemistry.
Three do not mix the developer an extended period before hand.
Four no acid stop use water.
Five maybe restain.
Six you can boost the contrast by adding more part B than the formula calls for.
Gordon H told me this one time in a conversation as I thought about and he confirmed
I was thinking correctly.
Seven consider using Rollo PMK if you process in a Jobo much better
Eight lastly using Amidol will greatly improve standard PMK just a pinch
but try two identical negatives and see if not true.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Ken Smith wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
Ken Smith wrote:

I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro
developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but
came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc.

And just how are you doing this? What method of exposure and development?

Trial and error. I took Tri-X down to 160 to get into the shadows
but it couldn't hold the highlights even with highly diluted developers.
HP-5 it turned out handled the highlights better. It's the oldest story
about film. How to compress a long range without going flat. That's
why I tried pyro, and the results were good, but lacked brilliance,
sometimes, not always. It's hard to call, scene to scene, and it becomes
a real hit and miss developer.

You seem to know the issues involved with using it, so with Gregory all
I can say is I've made satisfying images with any number of developers,
though pyro isn't a favorite. Still I don't find I've had a problem
holding highlights with any film. A current film/developer of choice is
Tmax100 in rodinal. With tmax I get subtle highlight separations. Being
you're in WY (which I know) scene luminance ranges can exceed 12-13
stops on a sunny summer day, plus there's a lot of UV. I find Tmax
records long tonal ranges pretty well and contracted or compensating
development is usually adequate.

Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows.
So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed.
However now I have noticed that I've been progressively slipping into
a greyness, and will have to bump the contrast up a little, to get a
sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability
that contrast provides.

I'm confused. What do you mean by "bump up the contrast"? How, exactly
would you, or do you, do this?

Adding B solution with pyro gives contrast. More time/temp,
more agitation. Same as anything else.

Is there a question here? I know pyro works like magic in some pretty
tough lighting, but my use of it for most landscapes has been a
mistake. Now if I bring up the contrast, I'll probably be back where I
started with HC-110. Any thoughts from reformed pyro users? The look
of my prints has so upset me lately that I swear I'm shooting more
poorly than ever, making confusing and distracting images, in an
mistaken attempt to show too much probably. I'm trying to do
landscapes in strong light, and without traditional composition. The
documentary/geological survey approach in all it's anti-scenic
splendor.

Pardon me if I disagree :-) Timothy O'Sullivan in particular and
several other geological survey documentarians are not what I would
consider "anti-scenic." They well knew how to use collodian processes
and limitations to great artistic and scenic effect.

Think New Topographic response to scenic photography. Robert Adams,
Joe Deal, Lweis Baltz, etc. Came out of the early 70's I think.
When I say geological survey, I dont mean O'Sullivan, I mean
a more deadpan pragmatic USGS work print. The look is almost
classification. Scenic is sometimes unavoidable, given the beauty
and grandure. But I try to keep it harder, away from the pretty.

Certainly Robert Adams seems to have succeeded there. Interesting
fellow. Quite shy about his work. In any case, it still doesn't sound to
me like a developer issue.

A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old
fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and
brilliant whites.

Sounds like a issue of the subject matter and scene lighting, not of the
developer. Got some examples?

Sorry no examples. I dont have a scanner. The zone system punch
vs. a more subtle almost ordinary looking print is what I meant
to express. I'm for the ordinary. I've done the punchy stuff, and
it's exciting, and convincing, but too "classic". The best thing
I've seen in a long time is the tonal control of William Wylie's
book, Riverwalk. Long range but good contrast, and a upbeat sense
of light from the print, not just the scene. When I do it, my
prints look like they are going down, his, the light comes up
and at you. If I add contrast, then my darks engulf again. It's
a pretty thin line, but Wylie did it exquisetly.

Haven't seen Riverwalk, but I think you're somewhat miscategorizing Zone
System in a rather narrow vein. Zone system is not a straightjacketed
method, or even an Ansel Adams method, to get "punch" in your contrast,
but quite flexable. It's simply basic sensitometry applied. You have to
remember that you're the one doing the applying, not the "system" or how
someone else has used it. It's an artistic concept, not so much an issue
of the developer but rather the method as applied. Adams effectively
used zone system with various development techniques (not necessarily
developer specific) to create photographs that expressed his perceived
"impressions of light" with long tonal range and subtle contrast.

I know it's not much help but it sounds as if you're expecting to
produce artistic vision through the developer, rather than the method
and controls as applied. FWIW in response to Gregory you noted Weston
used pyro. So did Adams, frequently (Aspens New Mexico was developed in
ABC.) But if you examine prints of the same scene both photographed
(sometimes on the same day) you'll see a remarkable difference in style,
shadow and highlight contrast, and artistry.

Anyway good luck.

let me paraphrase an old saying no insult intended

It's The Light, Stupid!

First hour and last hour of the day... In between is for meals, car
washing, girl watching, etc... I gotta tell ya that I have pored over the
details of many pictures in geology and hydrology text books taken at high
noon and as a record of the evolution of the land they are fascinating, but
they are b o r i n g as photographs...

You wanted to be a boring photographer? I doubt it... Go way back and
start over... Tri-X in D76, early and late in the day, and start your
evolution as a landscape photographer all over... Somewhere you made a
wrong turn...

With the best of intentions ... denny

"Ken Smith" wrote in message
m...
I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro
developers.

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:
let me paraphrase an old saying no insult intended
It's The Light, Stupid!

First hour and last hour of the day... In between is for meals, car
washing, girl watching, etc... I gotta tell ya that I have pored over the
details of many pictures in geology and hydrology text books taken at high
noon and as a record of the evolution of the land they are fascinating, but
they are b o r i n g as photographs...

You wanted to be a boring photographer? I doubt it... Go way back and
start over... Tri-X in D76, early and late in the day, and start your
evolution as a landscape photographer all over... Somewhere you made a
wrong turn...

With the best of intentions ... denny

There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects
for that hour.

Sorry Dennis, I agree with Gregory. It's not just the light; it's what
you do with it. Sunrise/Sunset landscape photography is an amateur
fallacy, usually espoused at "formula" workshops by self taught (i.e.,
know nothing) landscape artists who are merely repeating someone else's
formula. Another word for it is rut photography. For a serious landscape
photographer, ruts are major boring stuff. In reality, it does depend
entirely on the subject and artistic intention.

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
Ken Smith wrote:

I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro
developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but
came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc.

And just how are you doing this? What method of exposure and development?


Trial and error. I took Tri-X down to 160 to get into the shadows
but it couldn't hold the highlights even with highly diluted developers.
HP-5 it turned out handled the highlights better. It's the oldest story
about film. How to compress a long range without going flat. That's
why I tried pyro, and the results were good, but lacked brilliance,
sometimes, not always. It's hard to call, scene to scene, and it becomes
a real hit and miss developer.


Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows.
So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed.
However now I have noticed that I've been progressively slipping into
a greyness, and will have to bump the contrast up a little, to get a
sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability
that contrast provides.

I'm confused. What do you mean by "bump up the contrast"? How, exactly
would you, or do you, do this?

Adding B solution with pyro gives contrast. More time/temp,
more agitation. Same as anything else.

Is there a question here? I know pyro works like magic in some pretty
tough lighting, but my use of it for most landscapes has been a
mistake. Now if I bring up the contrast, I'll probably be back where I
started with HC-110. Any thoughts from reformed pyro users? The look
of my prints has so upset me lately that I swear I'm shooting more
poorly than ever, making confusing and distracting images, in an
mistaken attempt to show too much probably. I'm trying to do
landscapes in strong light, and without traditional composition. The
documentary/geological survey approach in all it's anti-scenic
splendor.

Pardon me if I disagree :-) Timothy O'Sullivan in particular and
several other geological survey documentarians are not what I would
consider "anti-scenic." They well knew how to use collodian processes
and limitations to great artistic and scenic effect.

Think New Topographic response to scenic photography. Robert Adams,
Joe Deal, Lweis Baltz, etc. Came out of the early 70's I think.
When I say geological survey, I dont mean O'Sullivan, I mean
a more deadpan pragmatic USGS work print. The look is almost
classification. Scenic is sometimes unavoidable, given the beauty
and grandure. But I try to keep it harder, away from the pretty.

A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old
fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and
brilliant whites.

Sounds like a issue of the subject matter and scene lighting, not of the
developer. Got some examples?

Sorry no examples. I dont have a scanner. The zone system punch
vs. a more subtle almost ordinary looking print is what I meant
to express. I'm for the ordinary. I've done the punchy stuff, and
it's exciting, and convincing, but too "classic". The best thing
I've seen in a long time is the tonal control of William Wylie's
book, Riverwalk. Long range but good contrast, and a upbeat sense
of light from the print, not just the scene. When I do it, my
prints look like they are going down, his, the light comes up
and at you. If I add contrast, then my darks engulf again. It's
a pretty thin line, but Wylie did it exquisetly.

Ken Smith
Wyoming

Gregory W Blank wrote in message ...
In article ,


HC 110 in dilute form is a fabulous developer in and of itself, the key is not misunderstanding
that any developer can produce gorgeous results, I have many great images produced
from a miriad of developers. Its fun to test all them or at least as many as one wishes.
Gaining fluency with one developer film combo, though is a major benefit. The type of Pyro
I state very infatically, will produce better or worse results. PMK is a good
choice but requires added exposure "in general" to produce optimal
results, there are many tricks to using it effectively and some films work better.

Thanks Greg.

I think the developer and time is the key to everything. Right now I'm doing
wonders holding a huge range of tones, but the highlights with go dull if
I print dark enough to get a decent black for contrast. I'm going to have
to get the highlights denser in the neg to allow for a longer printing
time, but alas, that can put me right back were I started with a too
strong contrast. It's somewhere in between the in between, or so it seems.
Good grief, I sound like Louis Carrol.


Considerations:

One prewet film,...the developer will take quicker. IMOP
Two break the developer total quantity into two parts and change it mid way through
process insuring fresh chemistry.
Three do not mix the developer an extended period before hand.
Four no acid stop use water.
Five maybe restain.
Six you can boost the contrast by adding more part B than the formula calls for.
Gordon H told me this one time in a conversation as I thought about and he confirmed
I was thinking correctly.
Seven consider using Rollo PMK if you process in a Jobo much better
Eight lastly using Amidol will greatly improve standard PMK just a pinch
but try two identical negatives and see if not true.

I switched to pyrocat. I prewet two-three min. 1:1/2:100- 1:1:100,
8-10 min 70 degrees regular agitation in tray leafing style. Great
stuff sometimes, other times it's weird how greyish things get. But
I can always selenium the negs. There's printing possibilities
still. I just want to get some standardization going.I'm going to do
another freakin test, and put pyrocat back up against D-76, HC-110,
and ABC. Different scenes etc. This pyro stuff might just have to
be more of an extreme contrast, ice, snow, developer. Normal scenes
are looking like my paper fogged, which is why many people rejected
it, I gather. I concure, because if I bring the contrast up with B,
I "might" be back where I started with good ol' D-76. Egad, what a
long and winding road this has been. Ed Weston used ABC, and made
very strong contrast images, with great depth, but I'm not sure
that kind of imagery requires pyro anyway.

Ken Smith
Wyoming

In article ,
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:
let me paraphrase an old saying no insult intended
It's The Light, Stupid!

First hour and last hour of the day... In between is for meals, car
washing, girl watching, etc... I gotta tell ya that I have pored over the
details of many pictures in geology and hydrology text books taken at high
noon and as a record of the evolution of the land they are fascinating, but
they are b o r i n g as photographs...

You wanted to be a boring photographer? I doubt it... Go way back and
start over... Tri-X in D76, early and late in the day, and start your
evolution as a landscape photographer all over... Somewhere you made a
wrong turn...

With the best of intentions ... denny

There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects
for that hour.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I know it's not much help but it sounds as if you're expecting to
produce artistic vision through the developer, rather than the method
and controls as applied. FWIW in response to Gregory you noted Weston
used pyro. So did Adams, frequently (Aspens New Mexico was developed in
ABC.) But if you examine prints of the same scene both photographed
(sometimes on the same day) you'll see a remarkable difference in style,
shadow and highlight contrast, and artistry.

Anyway good luck.

I will add that I personally dislike ABC pyro immensely , mainly because I project
my negatives though perhaps suitable for older non T grained films where one is
contact printing I find ABC is most problematic. Because I am limiting the overall
negatives density because I project the image (I typically shoot to make 16x20's)
I find that ABC stains too irradically for my lower density negatives. I have also seen
the very large negatives of others that use ABC and contact, the problems are there
too however the contacting and printing a featureless sky tends to mask the artfacts
somewhat.

Hum T Max and Rodinol? I should try that. Regards Greg
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank