Thanks Steve. Really, you have been so helpful to the large-format silver gelatin fraternity. This is an especially informative presentation. Cheers, Kevin
I have recently started using Pyrocat HD. My major reason was that nothing I was using seemed to get the look I wanted from Bergger Pancro 400, whether 120 or 4x5. Many years ago HC110 was my go-to developer, and I ended up using minimal agitation (5 seconds every 3 minutes) to improve apparent sharpness, I.e. acutance. So to be fair, this comparison would need a negative processed HC110 at high dilution (H or even more diluted) with minimal agitation to be complete. I still think the Pyrocat would be the “better” choice, but acutance might not be as big a factor. Thanks for this video, I’ll be watching more. Completely off topic - the ONE film I really, really miss is the original APX 100 in sheets. I have a few rolls of 120 and I am hoarding them for a special project.
This an excellent demonstration, thank you :0) I recently acquired 9×11 View Camera. All the film at the moment I have is the X-ray film so this will be an very interesting for me to try Steve's minimum agitation method with Pyrocat HD.
Very useful information Steve, thank you! When you talk about minimum agitation, what kind of agitation do you mean? How does the minimal agitation affects the developing time? Thank you!
Thanks very much for reaching out. If a normal continuous agitation with normal strength developer is 7.5 - 8 minutes. Mine would be 2 minutes continuous agitation at the beginning then stand for 8M then 20 seconds of agitation then stand in vertical orientation for another 8M then another 20 secs then stand vertically one more 8M cycle and then out to Stop and Fix. There is a much higher separation of tonalities throughout the low, mid and high values. Most easily seen in areas of high texture. Cheers. SS
@@SteveShermansPowerofProcess Thank you Steve! The results are really beautiful! So the total developing time with minimal agitation is between 25-30 minutes, right?
@@sergiyscheblykin2554 for a Normal Contrast negative. I still process different contrast scenes to different times, dilutions and agitation schemes. Much of my work deals with extreme contrast ranges.
very interesting comparison! i will get into pyro soon. Just one thing I have noticed though: the shadow detail of the hc110 seems to be more than both the pyro negatives although the latter have more contrast and tonal separation which translates into more perceptual depth or tactility as you said, do you agree?
Thanks for reaching out with your question. I am strictly a wet process large film photographer, so I have little knowledge of processing outside of the darkroom. That said, photographers I respect who have knowledge of both types of photography say that my wet processing techniques for film are simply smoother with greater vibrancy that film that is scanned and post processed by way of algorithm.
@@SteveShermansPowerofProcess Thanks. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I've been pursuing analog photography on the side and purchased the requisite gear, yet somehow ended up reading way more literature on the matter and still have an undeveloped roll of film in a canister as all the info made me more anxious than anything else. By way of research I ended up finding out about the pyro variants (and purchased the Pyrocat HD in liquid form), which piqued my interest, as the results were just breathtaking. But I've also been trying to figure out how much of the results are exclusive to the chemical process and whether or not it's something which can be duplicated digitally (by way of scanning film negatives, or doing the digital negative thing), or if the results are intrinsically rendering qualities by way of the chemical reactions, that would be impossible (or damn near impossible for a mortal) to replicate digitally. Have a great weekend and thanks again for taking the time to answer my question!
@@Dstonephoto To be perfectly fair to all parties, digital and analog, they're different, not one better than the other. I am friendly with some of the best film and digital photographers out there, I have heard them say the same. It's my belief that a flat digital sensor cannot replicate the roundness and depth that a piece of film can which has been processed by way of wet chemistry. My best and most unbiased advice I can offer, if you love challenges and the darkroom process than the choice is easy, analog and the darkroom. If you simply want to make visual images without the many times challenging aspects of film photography, i.e. time, ease of accessing a location and a host of other limitations than the digital process will provide great satisfaction, albeit expensive to stay current with the latest equipment. That said, a well known and accomplished digital photographer from Europe spent a week with me to learn film processing and silver printing. He was having his digital files converted to film and printed by one of the best silver printers in Europe. When he saw my portfolio of Silver prints he said numerous times, he simply could not get that depth and luminosity with the process he was using. Put your anxiety aside and make photographs with either process !!
@@SteveShermansPowerofProcess Thanks, I will. The thing is I ended up spending a ton of time depths of printing and development, and ultimately what held me back with pyro developer was the safety aspect of it. Which, I'm not saying it's safe to drink, but I'm beginning to think I probably went way overboard purchasing nitrile gloves, eye protection, etc. But no, I agree, they are different processes, but the proof is in the pudding, and there's something simply remarkable about those prints that makes my jaw drop. I've found a wealth of information from printers online, more so than I have the photographers, which just speaks volumes about their knowledge. I'm in awe, to be honest, about their knowledge as well as their contributions to the field. What's fascinating to me about film photography is how we had a wealth of brilliant people working on film stocks, developing chemicals, and so on. In the digital world suddenly this is all condensed to one person and the mantra seems to be that we can recreate all of this with a digital sensor and by tweaking a few knobs. In theory that may hold up, but in practice I've found that there's much more to image making than what I've been lead to believe. Then there's also the philosophical aspect of it all, whereby digital capture is substantially different than the exposure and capturing of a fleeing moment on film. It's truly fascinating stuff, and I think film photography has some very understated aspects to it. Last but not least, as a result of the idiosynchrasies of the nature of film photography and development, I think we have the ability to gain more depth of understanding of it all. At the end of the day, without a print, then what's the point of an image? If so, then it would stand to reason that the printer is the most crucial piece of genius in that pipeline. Thanks again for responding, hope you have a terrific weekend!
@@Dstonephoto I'll just say this about the info on the internet, and specifically social media. There are a lot of what I call "Forum Photographers" photogs who sit behind a keyboard and expound on topics they really are not experts in. I have a very narrow window of expertise, but as my video guys likes to respond too, yes but that expertise is bottomless. Really not the case, but enough expertise to know there is so much mis-information out there about wet process film photography specifically for Silver Gelatin printing, I really don't contribute any longer, simply because those who have the loudest voice rarely have the work to back it up, and sadly, the beginner will follow the one who is willing to promote his beliefs, even if they have little foundation. Few photogs my age, 40 years and counting in wet process & silver printing are willing to say the Zone System is no longer the holy grail of Silver printing. Modern printing materials and techniques are simply superior to traditional Zone System of negative design and resulting silver printing techniques. Have a look at this article I wrote for Unblinkingeye.com There are several articles I wrote for this online resource, the one linked here maybe most helpful for you unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.htmlunblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html
I've no doubt that PyroCat is a better developer than HC110. On the other hand, HC110 is the worst developer Kodak sells, and that statement is from Kodak. HC110 was formulated in the 1950s to provide small processors (drug stores) with a developer which had a long storage life and was a liquid easily mixed to working solution by an idiot (high school kid working part time). Sharpness and contrast were not considered a factor, as its negatives were used to quickly make a set of 3x5 type prints from the customer's 35mm roll for over night return. When consumers turned from B&W to color snaphots in the 1960s, HC110 should have suffered a quite death, but it hangs on for its convenience, not its quality, as well as a lot of nonsense about it in social media.
Interesting. In the "Negative," Ansel Adams stated that HC-110 was his preferred developer for films like Ilford FP4 and Kodak Tri-X. Fred Picker of Zone VI fame used HC-110 exclusively to develop his Kodak Tri-X negatives.
Thanks Steve. Really, you have been so helpful to the large-format silver gelatin fraternity. This is an especially informative presentation.
Cheers, Kevin
Thanks very much for your time to watch and of course offer inspiring words, SS
Yes.. that well tunned minimal agitation provides an impressive "microcontrast" boost, top notch crafting, thanks for teaching that.
Nice comparison. I never used Pirocat before. Keep making great clips Steve.
I have recently started using Pyrocat HD. My major reason was that nothing I was using seemed to get the look I wanted from Bergger Pancro 400, whether 120 or 4x5. Many years ago HC110 was my go-to developer, and I ended up using minimal agitation (5 seconds every 3 minutes) to improve apparent sharpness, I.e. acutance.
So to be fair, this comparison would need a negative processed HC110 at high dilution (H or even more diluted) with minimal agitation to be complete. I still think the Pyrocat would be the “better” choice, but acutance might not be as big a factor.
Thanks for this video, I’ll be watching more. Completely off topic - the ONE film I really, really miss is the original APX 100 in sheets. I have a few rolls of 120 and I am hoarding them for a special project.
This an excellent demonstration, thank you :0) I recently acquired 9×11 View Camera. All the film at the moment I have is the X-ray film so this will be an very interesting for me to try Steve's minimum agitation method with Pyrocat HD.
Thanks for your interest, best wishes on your journey with Large Format photography
Very useful information Steve, thank you! When you talk about minimum agitation, what kind of agitation do you mean? How does the minimal agitation affects the developing time? Thank you!
Thanks very much for reaching out. If a normal continuous agitation with normal strength developer is 7.5 - 8 minutes. Mine would be 2 minutes continuous agitation at the beginning then stand for 8M then 20 seconds of agitation then stand in vertical orientation for another 8M then another 20 secs then stand vertically one more 8M cycle and then out to Stop and Fix.
There is a much higher separation of tonalities throughout the low, mid and high values. Most easily seen in areas of high texture.
Cheers. SS
@@SteveShermansPowerofProcess Thank you Steve! The results are really beautiful! So the total developing time with minimal agitation is between 25-30 minutes, right?
@@sergiyscheblykin2554 for a Normal
Contrast negative. I still process different contrast scenes to different times, dilutions and agitation schemes. Much of my work deals with extreme contrast ranges.
very interesting comparison! i will get into pyro soon. Just one thing I have noticed though: the shadow detail of the hc110 seems to be more than both the pyro negatives although the latter have more contrast and tonal separation which translates into more perceptual depth or tactility as you said, do you agree?
I'd be interested to see HC-110 used with stand development as well. It's entirely possible.
I've used PMK Pyro and often had uneven staining which ruined many a good shot.
@steve sherman Well, if I'm feeling adventurous again, maybe I'll try it. Maybe Pyrocat is better in this respect. Thanks for the advice.
Interesting stuff. Could digital post-processing contrast adjustments further enhance either developer ?
Thanks for reaching out with your question. I am strictly a wet process large film photographer, so I have little knowledge of processing outside of the darkroom. That said, photographers I respect who have knowledge of both types of photography say that my wet processing techniques for film are simply smoother with greater vibrancy that film that is scanned and post processed by way of algorithm.
@@SteveShermansPowerofProcess Thanks. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I've been pursuing analog photography on the side and purchased the requisite gear, yet somehow ended up reading way more literature on the matter and still have an undeveloped roll of film in a canister as all the info made me more anxious than anything else. By way of research I ended up finding out about the pyro variants (and purchased the Pyrocat HD in liquid form), which piqued my interest, as the results were just breathtaking. But I've also been trying to figure out how much of the results are exclusive to the chemical process and whether or not it's something which can be duplicated digitally (by way of scanning film negatives, or doing the digital negative thing), or if the results are intrinsically rendering qualities by way of the chemical reactions, that would be impossible (or damn near impossible for a mortal) to replicate digitally. Have a great weekend and thanks again for taking the time to answer my question!
@@Dstonephoto To be perfectly fair to all parties, digital and analog, they're different, not one better than the other. I am friendly with some of the best film and digital photographers out there, I have heard them say the same. It's my belief that a flat digital sensor cannot replicate the roundness and depth that a piece of film can which has been processed by way of wet chemistry. My best and most unbiased advice I can offer, if you love challenges and the darkroom process than the choice is easy, analog and the darkroom. If you simply want to make visual images without the many times challenging aspects of film photography, i.e. time, ease of accessing a location and a host of other limitations than the digital process will provide great satisfaction, albeit expensive to stay current with the latest equipment. That said, a well known and accomplished digital photographer from Europe spent a week with me to learn film processing and silver printing. He was having his digital files converted to film and printed by one of the best silver printers in Europe. When he saw my portfolio of Silver prints he said numerous times, he simply could not get that depth and luminosity with the process he was using. Put your anxiety aside and make photographs with either process !!
@@SteveShermansPowerofProcess Thanks, I will. The thing is I ended up spending a ton of time depths of printing and development, and ultimately what held me back with pyro developer was the safety aspect of it. Which, I'm not saying it's safe to drink, but I'm beginning to think I probably went way overboard purchasing nitrile gloves, eye protection, etc. But no, I agree, they are different processes, but the proof is in the pudding, and there's something simply remarkable about those prints that makes my jaw drop. I've found a wealth of information from printers online, more so than I have the photographers, which just speaks volumes about their knowledge. I'm in awe, to be honest, about their knowledge as well as their contributions to the field. What's fascinating to me about film photography is how we had a wealth of brilliant people working on film stocks, developing chemicals, and so on. In the digital world suddenly this is all condensed to one person and the mantra seems to be that we can recreate all of this with a digital sensor and by tweaking a few knobs. In theory that may hold up, but in practice I've found that there's much more to image making than what I've been lead to believe. Then there's also the philosophical aspect of it all, whereby digital capture is substantially different than the exposure and capturing of a fleeing moment on film. It's truly fascinating stuff, and I think film photography has some very understated aspects to it. Last but not least, as a result of the idiosynchrasies of the nature of film photography and development, I think we have the ability to gain more depth of understanding of it all. At the end of the day, without a print, then what's the point of an image? If so, then it would stand to reason that the printer is the most crucial piece of genius in that pipeline. Thanks again for responding, hope you have a terrific weekend!
@@Dstonephoto I'll just say this about the info on the internet, and specifically social media. There are a lot of what I call "Forum Photographers" photogs who sit behind a keyboard and expound on topics they really are not experts in. I have a very narrow window of expertise, but as my video guys likes to respond too, yes but that expertise is bottomless. Really not the case, but enough expertise to know there is so much mis-information out there about wet process film photography specifically for Silver Gelatin printing, I really don't contribute any longer, simply because those who have the loudest voice rarely have the work to back it up, and sadly, the beginner will follow the one who is willing to promote his beliefs, even if they have little foundation. Few photogs my age, 40 years and counting in wet process & silver printing are willing to say the Zone System is no longer the holy grail of Silver printing. Modern printing materials and techniques are simply superior to traditional Zone System of negative design and resulting silver printing techniques. Have a look at this article I wrote for Unblinkingeye.com There are several articles I wrote for this online resource, the one linked here maybe most helpful for you unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.htmlunblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html
Video doesn't play
are these from 35mm negs????
I suppose tray developing for sheet films only. You can't develop 35 roll in tray.
I've no doubt that PyroCat is a better developer than HC110. On the other hand, HC110 is the worst developer Kodak sells, and that statement is from Kodak. HC110 was formulated in the 1950s to provide small processors (drug stores) with a developer which had a long storage life and was a liquid easily mixed to working solution by an idiot (high school kid working part time). Sharpness and contrast were not considered a factor, as its negatives were used to quickly make a set of 3x5 type prints from the customer's 35mm roll for over night return. When consumers turned from B&W to color snaphots in the 1960s, HC110 should have suffered a quite death, but it hangs on for its convenience, not its quality, as well as a lot of nonsense about it in social media.
Interesting. In the "Negative," Ansel Adams stated that HC-110 was his preferred developer for films like Ilford FP4 and Kodak Tri-X. Fred Picker of Zone VI fame used HC-110 exclusively to develop his Kodak Tri-X negatives.