From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Results of PMK Pyro
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:15:13 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Over the last couple of weeks I've made several postings about the book by
Gordon Hutchings _The Book of Pyro_ and cited lots of wonderful claims that
he makes for the PMK Pyro developer that he's developed.  But I had not had
the chance to print any Pyro negatives.  I have now and here's what I think
on the basis of printing a couple of them.

I should note before starting that I'm not a believer in "magic elixirs".  To
date I've used any number of film developers - TMAX, D-76, HC-110, ID11+,
Rodinal - and have found some differences between them but nothing to get
too excited about.  Sure, I stopped using TMAX because it seems to produce
less sharp negatives than the others, but still my experience has been pretty
much "one developer's as good as another".  But this pyrogallol truly seems 
different.

I now believe the claims that Mr. Hutchings has been making.  I've never had 
negatives print as easily as these did.  Before now I've had a lot of trouble 
with the local-contrast/overall-contrast problem.  I.e.  When I adjust 
contrast, either in paper contrast or in film development, such that both low 
and high values fit easily on the paper, local contrast, in the mid-tones in 
particular, is way too flat.  If I adjust print exposure and contrast such 
that local contrast in the mid-tones looks good, then I have to dodge the 
shadows and burn the highlights.  Sometimes to extremes.  Most of my prints 
have had enough manipulation that there are far more manipulated areas than 
unmanipulated.  

One of my main interests in the developer comes from his claim that when using 
it one will more often employ manipulations for artistic expression rather than
to salvage a difficult negative.  Another interest of mine is in achieving fine
gradations in high values and a sense of glowing whites, things which I've 
often had to struggle to attain.

I chose two pyro-developed negatives which had fairly wide density
ranges.  From about Zone 0-I through Zone VIII (in terms of how I wanted
the print to look.)  I had developed them using the time/temperature 
information in the book.  He lists his times/temperatures for N-3 to N+3 for 
most of the more popular films.  While I did do EI tests for my films, I
thought I'd try using his development times and, maybe, save myself the
work.

One negative in particular I expected to be a problem.  It's an early morning 
sea-scape (well actually there's a huge rock - a "sea-stack" - that looks like 
the bow of a ship filling most of the frame) with dark, dark shadows (down to 
a few spots of 0 density over b + f in the neg), mist glowing brightly in the 
sun and even a few nice white clouds.  I expected to do considerable burning of
the highlights, as I always have to.

But instead they printed on Ilford MG FB with a #2 filter with almost 
no manipulation.  Clouds displayed wonderful tonal gradations with no
manipulation.  The area of ocean mist with early morning sun falling on it
nearly glows, just as it did when I saw the scene.  An area of dark in 
a reflection in a tide pool prints with an inky blackness that positively 
glistens.  I've never before achieved such a positively liquid looking 
reflection.  Nor have I ever achieved such a wide range of values without
having to dodge or burn, while still having wonderful separation in the 
mid-tones.

Gray scale looks smoother than I'm used to and sharpness is outstanding.  Even
though I really can't see grain in an 11x14 made from (4x5) Tmax 100 in a 
conventional developer, somehow these prints look even smoother (the only
word I can think of) than what I'm used to.  I can see how the sharpness of 
these negatives could almost be a drawback.  Everything looks so sharp and 
smooth that any deviation from perfect focus will stand out more than before.   
In fact, the difference in sharpness between my 210mm and 90mm lenses was
really brought out.  While both prints are more than acceptably sharp,
the one made by the 90mm lens is definitely less sharp than that from the
210mm, as is to be expected.  I've thought that I could tell the difference
before but it seems more noticible now.

I've never had trouble focusing on 4x5 Tmax 100 negatives using my Peak grain
magnifier.  But these negatives have so little grain that focusing is somewhat 
difficult.  The grain *is* there and focusing *is* possible, you just have
to look a bit harder than before.

All this and my initial tests and experience indicate that I can shoot
at the manufacturer's recommended film speed!

So.  So far, in case you hadn't figured it out, I really like this stuff.
Since this really is a small sampling, I'll re-post if future experience makes 
me change my mind.

Barry
--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo