A few little ditties...Pyro Staining and how the hell did I develop a roll of film in dim light without it fogging (or just plain being destroyed)

Greetings. Long time.

I've been pretty giddy about Pyro PMK lately and i'm looking at old
negatives and thinking I'd like to stain them like you'd post-stain in
regular development. Seems a feasible option as if it works post-fix
it should still work months/years/later pretty much the same right?
Photo form. says to stain for 2 mins with fresh negs so I'm thinking
maybe I should increase the stain to say..4 mins? I would just test
this theory but I don't have any bunk negatives laying around.

Also has anyone ever stained transparencies with Pyro? (agfa scala,
for example- but color too!)

ok #2:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.

I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?



Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

----------
"Some Dude" wrote in message
...
Greetings. Long time.

I've been pretty giddy about Pyro PMK lately and i'm looking at old
negatives and thinking I'd like to stain them like you'd post-stain in
regular development. Seems a feasible option as if it works post-fix
it should still work months/years/later pretty much the same right?
Photo form. says to stain for 2 mins with fresh negs so I'm thinking
maybe I should increase the stain to say..4 mins? I would just test
this theory but I don't have any bunk negatives laying around.

Also has anyone ever stained transparencies with Pyro? (agfa scala,
for example- but color too!)

Black and white/silver images could be bleached and stained--some
intesifiers use this type of technology. Color is trickier since all you
have left after processing is a dye image.

ok #2:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.

I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?



Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

Well, if you work fairly fast you're probably OK. Ambient light is
non-directional and exposure at low levels is cumulative, and will first be
evident as a slight overall fog. Have a nice sit in the darkroom before you
load your next roll, last time I looked every bath has a nice "chair"
provided and stop up the light leaks when they appear. I use rolled
towels when I had to do it. You can also make temp covers for windows, fans
and such.
darkroommike

In article ,
Some Dude wrote:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.
I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?

About two years ago I wrote a book review for PhotoVision Magazine
about a chinese photographer that processed film in a bucket
in a windowless hut by the light of a red paper lantern. (Anything is possible).

If you compared a clear unexposed roll processed at the same time that
would be an accurate way to evaluate wehther your roll was somewhat fogged.
Unless the light was very strong and as Mike stated directional it will take a
fair amount of abuse. My entry level B&W course took place in a trailer on
campus the darroom where we off loaded our 35mm cassettes into tanks had a
rather large hole in the ceiling tiles that produced the same sort of result you
describe those negatives are still quite printable even relative to my more advanced
and better work.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Some Dude wrote:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.
I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?

About two years ago I wrote a book review for PhotoVision Magazine
about a chinese photographer that processed film in a bucket
in a windowless hut by the light of a red paper lantern. (Anything is possible).

If you compared a clear unexposed roll processed at the same time that
would be an accurate way to evaluate wehther your roll was somewhat fogged.
Unless the light was very strong and as Mike stated directional it will take a
fair amount of abuse. My entry level B&W course took place in a trailer on
campus the darroom where we off loaded our 35mm cassettes into tanks had a
rather large hole in the ceiling tiles that produced the same sort of result you
describe those negatives are still quite printable even relative to my more advanced
and better work.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Some Dude wrote:

Greetings. Long time.

I've been pretty giddy about Pyro PMK lately and i'm looking at old
negatives and thinking I'd like to stain them like you'd post-stain in
regular development. Seems a feasible option as if it works post-fix
it should still work months/years/later pretty much the same right?
Photo form. says to stain for 2 mins with fresh negs so I'm thinking
maybe I should increase the stain to say..4 mins? I would just test
this theory but I don't have any bunk negatives laying around.

Also has anyone ever stained transparencies with Pyro? (agfa scala,
for example- but color too!)

ok #2:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.

I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?


Film is far less sensitive to light than your eyes.
Likely it just caused a bit of fog you printed through.
In very dim light that eyes may adjust to and perceive, a
relatively slow film (100 ISO or less) would likely require
a longer exposure than the time it takes to reel load it
to cause serious issues.

Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
Some Dude wrote:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.
I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?

About two years ago I wrote a book review for PhotoVision Magazine
about a chinese photographer that processed film in a bucket
in a windowless hut by the light of a red paper lantern. (Anything is possible).

If you compared a clear unexposed roll processed at the same time that
would be an accurate way to evaluate wehther your roll was somewhat fogged.
Unless the light was very strong and as Mike stated directional it will take a
fair amount of abuse. My entry level B&W course took place in a trailer on
campus the darroom where we off loaded our 35mm cassettes into tanks had a
rather large hole in the ceiling tiles that produced the same sort of result you
describe those negatives are still quite printable even relative to my more advanced
and better work.

Boy, some school administrater must have been cheaper
than Jack Benny... Even most community colleges and
high schools I was familair with had real darkrooms.

Course a trailer still beats a dark tent collodian
folks used.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:


Boy, some school administrater must have been cheaper
than Jack Benny... Even most community colleges and
high schools I was familair with had real darkrooms.

Course a trailer still beats a dark tent collodian
folks used.

Nah and didn't mean to imply that:

The photo program was very popular at my Community
college. The program was excellent and one of the best in the
area, probably still is (Knowing the who is in charge :-)

The Primary darkroom located in a real brick and stone building
had/has about twenty enlargers a 16x 20 color processor and a
communal island for B&W work. There was also a private darkroom
that had two color 4x5 enlargers. They had two paper driers, and a
photo studio outfitted with a 2400 ws Speedo system and studio stand
for the camera , 4x5 cameras for student use. It was an awesome program
at th community college level.

Part of why I have done so well so far is the very high caliber of the local
professional photographers that instructed thier. All are still
currently working in photography or graphics at this point.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:


Boy, some school administrater must have been cheaper
than Jack Benny... Even most community colleges and
high schools I was familair with had real darkrooms.

Course a trailer still beats a dark tent collodian
folks used.

Nah and didn't mean to imply that:

Still, they could have fixed the ceiling tiles ;

The photo program was very popular at my Community
college. The program was excellent and one of the best in the
area, probably still is (Knowing the who is in charge :-)

The Primary darkroom located in a real brick and stone building
had/has about twenty enlargers a 16x 20 color processor and a
communal island for B&W work. There was also a private darkroom
that had two color 4x5 enlargers. They had two paper driers, and a
photo studio outfitted with a 2400 ws Speedo system and studio stand
for the camera , 4x5 cameras for student use. It was an awesome program
at th community college level.

Part of why I have done so well so far is the very high caliber of the local
professional photographers that instructed thier. All are still
currently working in photography or graphics at this point.

I had a prof (deceased now) who used to camp out in
Bret Weston's living room...

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Some Dude wrote:

Greetings. Long time.

I've been pretty giddy about Pyro PMK lately and i'm looking at old
negatives and thinking I'd like to stain them like you'd post-stain in
regular development. Seems a feasible option as if it works post-fix
it should still work months/years/later pretty much the same right?
Photo form. says to stain for 2 mins with fresh negs so I'm thinking
maybe I should increase the stain to say..4 mins? I would just test
this theory but I don't have any bunk negatives laying around.



I have used pyrogallol, catechol and hydroquinone (separately, not
together) as an intensifier for negatives. Bleach the neg in a
rehalogenating bleach ( a solution of ferricyanide and bromide like you
would use for sepia toning). Wash it and redevolope in room light in
staining developer. The simplest will be a teaspoon of hydroquinone and
a teaspoon of sodium carbonate in a pint of water. Use it right away and
develop till it won't develop any more. wash the negative. No need to
fix it. Substitute catechol or pyrogallol for the hydroquinone for some
different colors.

If you are thinking about color transprencies, try Easter egg dyes.

Also has anyone ever stained transparencies with Pyro? (agfa scala,
for example- but color too!)

ok #2:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.

I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?



Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

Some Dude wrote:

Greetings. Long time.

I've been pretty giddy about Pyro PMK lately and i'm looking at old
negatives and thinking I'd like to stain them like you'd post-stain in
regular development. Seems a feasible option as if it works post-fix
it should still work months/years/later pretty much the same right?
Photo form. says to stain for 2 mins with fresh negs so I'm thinking
maybe I should increase the stain to say..4 mins? I would just test
this theory but I don't have any bunk negatives laying around.



I have used pyrogallol, catechol and hydroquinone (separately, not
together) as an intensifier for negatives. Bleach the neg in a
rehalogenating bleach ( a solution of ferricyanide and bromide like you
would use for sepia toning). Wash it and redevolope in room light in
staining developer. The simplest will be a teaspoon of hydroquinone and
a teaspoon of sodium carbonate in a pint of water. Use it right away and
develop till it won't develop any more. wash the negative. No need to
fix it. Substitute catechol or pyrogallol for the hydroquinone for some
different colors.

If you are thinking about color transprencies, try Easter egg dyes.

Also has anyone ever stained transparencies with Pyro? (agfa scala,
for example- but color too!)

ok #2:

I moved out of my studio and am now doing the ol bathroom "in the tub
with the curtain closed" loading for a while and I was being really,
really sloppy as I was loading the roll I could start seeing the reel
(AND the film!) as I was loading it (apx 100)...My initial reaction
was f**k, but instead I accepted its potential fate and basically sat
there until my eyes adjusted and it was damn clear the room wasn't
dark. So I loaded the film into the tank and developed it rod 1:25
5.5m 20c and it came out awesome, on par with any other time i've
developed with this simple formula.

I'm really scratching my head on this. Do I have super good vision or
have I been under the wrong impression I need darkness to load film?



Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh