A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jobo atl3



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 11th 10, 07:23 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default Pyro Developers Question.

On 8/11/2010 9:52 AM Thor Lancelot Simon spake thus:

In article ,
Darkroom User wrote:

IanG;886420 Wrote:

PYROCAT HD GIVES FINER GRAIN, BETTER SHARPNESS AND MORE TONALITY THAN
D76, ALTHOUGH ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR LF NEGATIVES IT'S ALSO USED FOR
35MM &120 NEGATIVES.


If it gives finer grain as well as better sharpness than D76, then
it must be good.


It also gives world peace and free beer. You can be sure it is excellent.


My sentiments toward pyro as well. Not worth messing with, unless one is
part of the more-exotic-than-thou brigade.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
  #12  
Old August 12th 10, 08:15 AM
Darkroom User Darkroom User is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Nebenzahl View Post

IanG;886420 Wrote:

PYROCAT HD GIVES FINER GRAIN, BETTER SHARPNESS AND MORE TONALITY THAN
D76, ALTHOUGH ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR LF NEGATIVES IT'S ALSO USED FOR
35MM &120 NEGATIVES.


If it gives finer grain as well as better sharpness than D76, then
it must be good.

[/i][/color]

It also gives world peace and free beer. You can be sure it is excellent.[/i][/color]


My sentiments toward pyro as well. Not worth messing with, unless one is
part of the more-exotic-than-thou brigade.


--
I am new to the darkroom and my questions concerning pyro are genuine. I had read on various sites about pyro developers including WD2D, PMK and Pyrocat-HD. If these developers offer no advantage over standards like D76, ID11 or XTol, then I will choose one of those instead.

Please help me to learn, rather than post replies that come across as being sarcastic.
I really do want to try to understand what is good darkroom practice, such as choosing the right processes and materials. I have many questions that I want to post here on photobanter.
  #13  
Old August 12th 10, 06:55 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default Jobo atl3

On 8/12/2010 12:15 AM Darkroom User spake thus:

David Nebenzahl;886934 Wrote:

IanG;886420 Wrote:

PYROCAT HD GIVES FINER GRAIN, BETTER SHARPNESS AND MORE TONALITY THAN
D76, ALTHOUGH ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR LF NEGATIVES IT'S ALSO USED FOR
35MM &120 NEGATIVES.-

If it gives finer grain as well as better sharpness than D76, then
it must be good.



IT ALSO GIVES WORLD PEACE AND FREE BEER. YOU CAN BE SURE IT IS
EXCELLENT.


My sentiments toward pyro as well. Not worth messing with, unless one is
part of the more-exotic-than-thou brigade.[/i][/color]

I am new to the darkroom and my questions concerning pyro are
genuine. I had read on various sites about pyro developers including
WD2D, PMK and Pyrocat-HD. If these developers offer no advantage over
standards like D76, ID11 or XTol, then I will choose one of those
instead.

Please help me to learn, rather than post replies that come across as
being sarcastic. I really do want to try to understand what is good
darkroom practice, such as choosing the right processes and
materials. I have many questions that I want to post here on
photobanter.[/i][/color]

I was being sarcastic, but I do take your concerns seriously. My serious
answer to your queries about pyro developers is really "don't bother".
It's not worth the hassle. You can get wonderful results using any of an
array of readily-available conventional developers. So unless you insist
on doing something peculiar, boutique-y and idiosyncratic, stick with
D-76/ID-11, Microdol-X, Xtol, etc.

By the way, just curious: what's with the strange quoting style you used
(putting previously-quoted material in ALL CAPS, with non-functional
"tags", like [/color])? That in itself is kinda like using pyro. I'm
just saying ...


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
  #14  
Old August 13th 10, 09:18 AM
Darkroom User Darkroom User is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Nebenzahl View Post
On 8/12/2010 12:15 AM Darkroom User spake thus:
[color=blue][i]
David Nebenzahl;886934 Wrote:
[i]
IanG;886420 Wrote:

I was being sarcastic, but I do take your concerns seriously. My serious
answer to your queries about pyro developers is really "don't bother".
It's not worth the hassle. You can get wonderful results using any of an
array of readily-available conventional developers. So unless you insist
on doing something peculiar, boutique-y and idiosyncratic, stick with
D-76/ID-11, Microdol-X, Xtol, etc.

By the way, just curious: what's with the strange quoting style you used
(putting previously-quoted material in ALL CAPS, with non-functional
"tags", like
)? That in itself is kinda like using pyro. I'm
just saying ...


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
I am posting through the Photo-Banter site: www.photobanter.com
and those "tags" come up when I reply, although I do highlight certain quotes in bold type.

By posting through this site, it helps to prevent receiving spam emails, although I am not sure if I am getting to read all of the replies to the threads.

Thank you for your reasonable reply to stick with regular developers. I was curious to know why some people use pyro developers instead of normal non staining developers and what they perceive their advantages to be.
I am here to learn from the more experienced photographers and darkroom users. :-)
  #15  
Old August 13th 10, 06:30 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default Jobo atl3

On 8/13/2010 1:18 AM Darkroom User spake thus:

I am posting through the Photo-Banter site: www.photobanter.com and
those "tags" come up when I reply, although I do highlight certain
quotes in bold type.

By posting through this site, it helps to prevent receiving spam
emails, although I am not sure if I am getting to read all of the
replies to the threads.


OK, you're forgiven: it's not your fault. The software you're using to
post (Photobanter's forum software) is brain-damaged, at least where
quoting text is concerned.

Most of us here access Usenet (that's where these threads reside) the
conventional way, using a mail client (aka "newsreader"), which shows
the newsgroup the way [insert name of deity here] intended. You might
try it yourself sometime. Actually more direct than going through a web
site.

And it's very easy to post without receiving spam: just do like me and
use a phony "handle". Zero spam.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
  #16  
Old August 14th 10, 05:50 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Pyro Developers Question.


"Lew" wrote in message
...
Isn't there also the claim that, as development & tanning
progress in
highlight areas, the emulsion physically compresses (as a
result of
the tanning) thereby holding less developer? ie there is
even more
moderation of highlight densities than there is via the
mechanism of
developer exhaustion alone.
I haven't tested this extensively, but my limited
experience leads me
to believe that, on a very sunny day, with the sun
overhead, plus
areas of deep shadow, using iso 200 - 400 films, I did
obtain easy to
print negatives with plenty of highlight detail.

I have never seen this suggested and doubt very much if
it happens. Developer penetrates by diffusion from the
surface. The "hardness" of the gelatin has little to do with
it. AFAIK, there is no such action due to differential
hardening.
There is a differential imagewise shrinkage of the
emulsion but it probably happens as the emulsion dries. One
result of this is an acutance effect due to a difference of
index of refraction along the demarcation of high and low
density areas. It also produces a distortion of the image on
a very small scale but enough so that tanning developers are
undesirable for photo metrology purposes.


--
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA




  #17  
Old August 14th 10, 06:15 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Jobo atl3


"Darkroom User"
wrote in message
news

David Nebenzahl;886934 Wrote:


IanG;886420 Wrote:
-
PYROCAT HD GIVES FINER GRAIN, BETTER SHARPNESS AND MORE
TONALITY THAN
D76, ALTHOUGH ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR LF NEGATIVES IT'S
ALSO USED FOR
35MM &120 NEGATIVES.-

If it gives finer grain as well as better sharpness than
D76, then
it must be good.



IT ALSO GIVES WORLD PEACE AND FREE BEER. YOU CAN BE SURE
IT IS
EXCELLENT.


My sentiments toward pyro as well. Not worth messing
with, unless one is

part of the more-exotic-than-thou brigade.


-- I am new to the darkroom and my questions concerning
pyro are genuine. I[/i][/color]
had read on various sites about pyro developers including
WD2D, PMK and
Pyrocat-HD. If these developers offer no advantage over
standards like
D76, ID11 or XTol, then I will choose one of those
instead.

Please help me to learn, rather than post replies that
come across as
being sarcastic.
I really do want to try to understand what is good
darkroom practice,
such as choosing the right processes and materials. I have
many
questions that I want to post here on photobanter.




--
Darkroom User[/i][/color]

I think it is always interesting to experiment and
learn. There is a definite effect of highlight compression
when using a staining developer with variable contrast
printing materials. Its quite measureable but may not be
worth doing or may not be desirable for all images.
The newer pyro formulas, like PMK are attempts to
overcome some of the faults of the classical formulas,
mostly that they tended to be grainy and somewhat
unpredictable. The grain comes mainly from being active,
most of these formulas use sodium carbonate or some
equivalent as accelerators. They were necessary for the
films which were contemporary with the developer. they work
with newer films, especially when diluted more than the
original instructions indicate.
Formulas like the late ABC Pyro as published by Kodak,
Ansco, and others, is fairly long lived in stock solutions
and has relatively constant activity. Kodak D-7 is a
Pyro-Metol formula with somewhat longer life in a tank or
tray than ABC. There are a lot of variations. In my list are
some special formulas including Kodak's version intended to
maximize the stain image.
Note that some users of PMK or Rolo Pyro suggest an
after-bath in the developer to maximize the stain. What that
does is to produce an overall stain, which is _not_
desirable rather than the imagewise stain which is what you
want. A properly developed pyro negative should have little
or no stain in the clear portions but a noticable yellow,
greenish, or brownish stain following the image. The tanning
is visible as a relief image on the dry film when held so
that light reflects from the emulsion surface. Tanning
developers were highly developed for use in producing the
relief images used in the Kodak Dye Transfer process and
Flexichrome process, each of which made use of the tanning
to make parts of the emulsion more resistant to being
removed by hot water. When "developed" by rinsing in the
water the remaining emulsion followed the iamge exactly and
could be used for absorbing dyes either for direct use
(Flexichrome) or for transfer to a support paper in a
process similar to lithography. An earlier version of the
dye transfer process, called the Eastman Wash-Off Relief
process used a different method of differential hardening,
namely a bichromate process similar to that used for
Carbon/Carbro. If you are interested in these old processes
do a Google search for "alternative processes". Most are
still practiced and can produce beatiful results. However, I
suggest for someone starting out to make life simpler by
using well-established packaged materials. Once you get
control of the overall process of development and printing
you can try experimenting with mix your own chemistry. Most
of it is not difficult to do. There are NO magic developers
but some have definite personalities which can make them
interesting. Pyro is of historical importance, it was the
first organic reducing agent to be discovered. I would not
discourage anyone from trying it out but work with something
more modern first. At this time probably the closest thing
to an "optimum" developer is Kodak Xtol. Next choice is
D-76, which is close to optimum for nearly anything and is
perfectly reliable.
After having used a lot of print developers I have gone
back to plain old Dektol. The published formula D-72 is
about the same stuff. Ilford makes an equivalent. Ilford
Bromophen is a Dektol type developer that uses Phenidone in
place of Metol. It is better for you if you are sensitive to
Metol, which some people are and tends to give more neutral
colored images with some materials. It is perfectly
satisfactory. There are about a zillion print developer
formulas that go to show simply how imprecise one can be in
formulating:-) There is not much difference from one to
another. As far as warm vs cold tone, that is mostly a
property of the emulsion. While it is influenced by the
developer its mainly established by the paper. Developers
can have some influence on toning but that is often related
to the amount of bromide in them or other variations that
can be had by varying around a standard formula.
One of the biggest differences between B&W and color
photography is the lack of standardization in B&W. Color
processing is very tighly specified and controlled and,
while some variation is possible, the range of variation
within which satisfactory color can be obtained are fairly
limited.


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #18  
Old August 14th 10, 10:36 AM
Darkroom User Darkroom User is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Unfortunately, Apple-Mail cannot be used for Newsgroups. I have edited out the color tags this time. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Nebenzahl View Post
On 8/13/2010 1:18 AM Darkroom User spake thus:

I am posting through the Photo-Banter site: www.photobanter.com and
those "tags" come up when I reply, although I do highlight certain
quotes in bold type.

By posting through this site, it helps to prevent receiving spam
emails, although I am not sure if I am getting to read all of the
replies to the threads.

OK, you're forgiven: it's not your fault. The software you're using to
post (Photobanter's forum software) is brain-damaged, at least where
quoting text is concerned.

Most of us here access Usenet (that's where these threads reside) the
conventional way, using a mail client (aka "newsreader"), which shows
the newsgroup the way [insert name of deity here] intended. You might
try it yourself sometime. Actually more direct than going through a web
site.

And it's very easy to post without receiving spam: just do like me and
use a phony "handle". Zero spam.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
  #19  
Old August 14th 10, 11:08 AM
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Feb 2005
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Knoppow View Post

I think it is always interesting to experiment and
learn. There is a definite effect of highlight compression
when using a staining developer with variable contrast
printing materials. Its quite measureable but may not be
worth doing or may not be desirable for all images.

At this time probably the closest thing
to an "optimum" developer is Kodak Xtol. Next choice is
D-76, which is close to optimum for nearly anything and is
perfectly reliable.

After having used a lot of print developers I have gone
back to plain old Dektol. The published formula D-72 is
about the same stuff. Ilford makes an equivalent. Ilford
Bromophen is a Dektol type developer that uses Phenidone in
place of Metol. It is better for you if you are sensitive to
Metol, which some people are and tends to give more neutral
colored images with some materials. It is perfectly
satisfactory. There are about a zillion print developer
formulas that go to show simply how imprecise one can be in
formulating:-) There is not much difference from one to
another. As far as warm vs cold tone, that is mostly a
property of the emulsion. While it is influenced by the
developer its mainly established by the paper. Developers
can have some influence on toning but that is often related
to the amount of bromide in them or other variations that
can be had by varying around a standard formula.

One of the biggest differences between B&W and color
photography is the lack of standardization in B&W.




--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
I agree, start with a standard developer like D-76 (ID-11) or Xtol for film processing.
I like Kodak D-76, as I can buy it cheaper than ID-11 at the moment from Ag-Photographic in the UK for just £0.99 a litre of stock.
The main advantage I can see for Xtol over D-76 is with replenishment. As I use D-76 1+1, I am happy to keep using it, although I have tried Xtol.

Like wise with B&W papers, the character is mostly due to the emulsion itself rather than the developer types, although they can help in a subtle way.
Again, a standard paper developer like Dektol, Bromophen, PQ-Universal, Multigrade or Adox WA liquid (formerly Agfa Neutol WA) would be good choices for regular use, although there are many others worthy of consideration. They are too close to each other in performance IMHO to worry about.
  #20  
Old August 14th 10, 05:16 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Thor Lancelot Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Jobo atl3

In article ,
Darkroom User wrote:

Unfortunately, Apple-Mail cannot be used for Newsgroups. I have edited
out the color tags this time. :-)


But you top-posted, which is every bit as rude. Stop doing that. Your
new material should go between and below what you quote; never above it.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help with JOBO [email protected] In The Darkroom 4 January 2nd 06 11:22 PM
WTB: Jobo CPE-2+ Rich Shepard Darkroom Equipment For Sale 2 May 26th 05 11:33 PM
Adding Jobo water heater to Jobo processor winddancing In The Darkroom 1 December 15th 04 11:15 AM
Jobo CPA-2/CPP-2 Mark Cudworth In The Darkroom 5 June 19th 04 03:54 PM
Looking for Jobo 3010 Lid wingnut Large Format Photography Equipment 2 February 24th 04 02:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.