PMK Pyro Developer

halvmesyr said:
Finally got round to develop my first two rolls with PMK Pyro. I held off developing these for a long time due to being a bit worried about the high toxicity of pyrogallol. I got nitrile gloves and a breathing mask and tried my best to be careful of spills. I think it went fine, but it took a lot more time in preparation than my usual process. I had a lot of help of your website Chris. Thanks a lot for sharing all that information. I used your recipe (7 minutes at 24C).
Click to expand...



I'm glad I could help.

When you scan your film, don't use the scans right from the scanner; they look very lifeless and flat. Scans MUST be edited to bring out the tonality that you would get if you were printing in the darkroom. I edited both of yours to show the potential they have.








My intro to film scanning tutorial talks about that more and has some examples.

https://crawfordphotoschool.com/digi...ning-intro.php
 
halvmesyr said:
Hi! These are edited a bit. I should say I'm going for a flatter/brighter look. But I definitely see your point! Maybe there might be some way to maintain that look but with more range? 🙂
Click to expand...

Those are just plain too flat. Go buy a book of photographs by someone known for their B&W work. Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, John Sexton, Clyde Butcher, Michael and Paula Smith, Richard Avedon, Jerry Uelsmann...the list is endless. NONE of them made images that looked like that. An important part of learning photographic technique is having a frame of reference, the knowledge of what a good photograph looks like from a technical standpoint. I was fortunate when I was in art school that the local art museum brought in traveling shows from great photographers like that. The university also organized student trips to places like the Art Institute of Chicago. Seeing original prints is a transforming experience for me. Even the best books don't capture the depth and subtlety of the tonality. I've found that most photographers don't have that experience of seeing great work.

So how do you get the tonality I got without losing highlight and shadow detail? These photos were shot in very high contrast light. You can either shoot in softer light (like overcast days) or you can reduce the developing time 25% and increase exposure by one stop. The reduced developing time keeps the light tones from blowing out. The increased exposure is needed because the effective film speed drops by a stop when you reduce developing time.

This article that I wrote shows how that works: https://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/developing-contrast.php

I think the contrasty light looks really great with the car photo; it would not have the same impact if shot on an overcast day. The other photo doesn't work well in that harsh light and would be better if shot on a cloudy day.
 
halvmesyr,

Here's my effort to bridge the gap between what you're after and what Chris suggested:

remixed.jpg
 
halvmesyr said:
Finally got round to develop my first two rolls with PMK Pyro. I held off developing these for a long time due to being a bit worried about the high toxicity of pyrogallol. I got nitrile gloves and a breathing mask and tried my best to be careful of spills. I think it went fine, but it took a lot more time in preparation than my usual process. I had a lot of help of your website Chris. Thanks a lot for sharing all that information. I used your recipe (7 minutes at 24C).

51672708768_51e3e51980_c.jpg


51673339945_92a6677ec0_c.jpg


(Minolta x700, 45mm f2. PMK Pyro 1:2:100. Moersch ATS Alkaline fixer)
Click to expand...

If your intent is to make photographs that have this soft tonality then there is nothing wrong with them.

The better educated among us can cite numerous examples of images hanging in museums that don't fit into a little box that Ansel made and others try to close around you, so keep making what you feel like making.
 
PRJ said:
If your intent is to make photographs that have this soft tonality then there is nothing wrong with them.

The better educated among us can cite numerous examples of images hanging in museums that don't fit into a little box that Ansel made and others try to close around you, so keep making what you feel like making.
Click to expand...


How dare you call me uneducated? You come here and hide behind a fake name, post no work of your own, no exhibition record, nothing...and you insult someone who is trying to help others.

I gave a long list of photographers who have very diverse styles, yet none make flat lifeless prints like the images above. In fact, it is damned near impossible to make such muddy prints in the darkroom because the printing papers have too much contrast. Scanning film and not editing the muddy images that a scanner gives is not an aesthetic choice; its simply poor technique rooted in lack of knowledge about the process and materials being used. That's why I am teaching about the process. I'm not just saying 'do it this way;' I'm telling how scanners work and why they give the results they do. If you're not going to do it right, then using exotic developers like PMK is a waste of money and time because you will see absolutely no differences between images developed in different chemistry.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
How dare you call me uneducated? You come here and hide behind a fake name, post no work of your own, no exhibition record, nothing...and you insult someone who is trying to help others.

I gave a long list of photographers who have very diverse styles, yet none make flat lifeless prints like the images above. In fact, it is damned near impossible to make such muddy prints in the darkroom because the printing papers have too much contrast. Scanning film and not editing the muddy images that a scanner gives is not an aesthetic choice; its simply poor technique rooted in lack of knowledge about the process and materials being used. That's why I am teaching about the process. I'm not just saying 'do it this way;' I'm telling how scanners work and why they give the results they do. If you're not going to do it right, then using exotic developers like PMK is a waste of money and time because you will see absolutely no differences between images developed in different chemistry.
Click to expand...

I didn't reference you at all. But since you came after me, here you go. Lets get real, how dare you tell someone that their images are lifeless and then proceed to edit them? If you were really here to help people you would ask them what their intent was, not tell them they aren't doing it like you. It is pretty obvious to me that you are here to help yourself.

Fake name? Did your mother name you Chriscrawfordphoto? Lol.

You keep opening up your mouth and digging a bigger hole. Can't make soft prints in the darkroom? Ever heard of Henry Wessel? Or Roy DeCarava? I could make a long list like I already said. Maybe YOU are not able to do it but it is easily done. Stop riding your Dogma. When is the last time you were even in a darkroom?

You have been spewing nonsense for years quite frankly but I avoid pointing it out because you have such a fragile ego which is on display for any intelligent person here. You just attack anyone that dares to question you. You provide people with the most basic information like you are reinventing the wheel. Cracks me up.

And a near perfect scan can be made right from the scanner. Maybe you just don't know how. Seeing a pattern here?

i assume you are going to attack me again for just stating the obvious. Or cry to a moderator. Probably both.
 
PRJ said:
I didn't reference you at all. But since you came after me, here you go. Lets get real, how dare you tell someone that their images are lifeless and then proceed to edit them? If you were really here to help people you would ask them what their intent was, not tell them they aren't doing it like you. It is pretty obvious to me that you are here to help yourself.

Fake name? Did your mother name you Chriscrawfordphoto? Lol.

You keep opening up your mouth and digging a bigger hole. Can't make soft prints in the darkroom? Ever heard of Henry Wessel? Or Roy DeCarava? I could make a long list like I already said. Maybe YOU are not able to do it but it is easily done. Stop riding your Dogma. When is the last time you were even in a darkroom?

You have been spewing nonsense for years quite frankly but I avoid pointing it out because you have such a fragile ego which is on display for any intelligent person here. You just attack anyone that dares to question you. You provide people with the most basic information like you are reinventing the wheel. Cracks me up.

And a near perfect scan can be made right from the scanner. Maybe you just don't know how. Seeing a pattern here?

i assume you are going to attack me again for just stating the obvious. Or cry to a moderator. Probably both.
Click to expand...



My real name is at the bottom of every post. In case you haven't noticed, this is MY part of RFF, and if you read the intro to my forum, I am here to teach people. So I had every right to tell him that his photos needed work. Don't like it, leave.
 
If you like the staining developers pyrocat - M (Metol) is easy to make and gives a nice tone with FP4 and HP5. It is used dilute like pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 you can get full box speed at around 13 minutes @70 degrees . I like it a little under developed vs over developed but I am processing individual sheets and adjusting time and or dilution. I recently used a negative which prints normally at contrast grade 2 to make a salt print and it worked out just fine. It also works well as a second pass developer (toner) for prints partially bleached and redeveloped in 20:15:1000 for a couple of 8x10s. Gives a slightly warm brown-olive tone and may impart a light stain to fiber paper, but also seems to sharpen the edge contrasts.

PART A STOCK
350ML water 120*
Metol 1.25g
Sodium Metabisulfite 5g
Pyrocatechin 25g
Water to 500ml

Or make as little as 200ML - shelf life is about 1 year if you do not fill the bottles, longer if you do.

PART B STOCK
Distilled Water 700 ml
Potassium Carbonate 750 g
Distilled water to make 1000 ml
* Lasts forever.


For roll film developing you will need a tank that holds about 500ml working solution 5A:5B:490W . For EMA/semi-stand you will need at least 3.5ml Part A to 3ml Part B and double the time as a starting point.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I'm glad I could help.

When you scan your film, don't use the scans right from the scanner; they look very lifeless and flat. Scans MUST be edited to bring out the tonality that you would get if you were printing in the darkroom. I edited both of yours to show the potential they have.








My intro to film scanning tutorial talks about that more and has some examples.

https://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/film-scanning-intro.php
Click to expand...

Could you please remove these? I don't like how they look and I never gave you permission to edit my photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom