Hi,

after reading Sandy King's article:

http://www.viewcamera.com/documents/pages48-55.pdf

I wonder:

- are we all to buy gallons of diafine and toss our gallons of d76 and perceptol?
- how does pyrocat hd compare to diafine for scanning?

I was rather surprised to see Sany King advocate diafine, considered he's the inventor of pyrocat hd.

Or maybe diafine vs pyrocat hd is the subject of another article?

I wonder:

- are we all to buy gallons of diafine and toss our gallons of d76 and perceptol?

Have D76 and Perceptol been doing what you want? Is there some specific problem you think--after reviewing all the information you have--Diafine can solve for you?

If so, go for it. Otherwise, why change to chase after the latest recommendation? There is *no* perfect developer or film or anything. The classic advice is always the best: pick one or two films and one developer. Learn everything you can about them, use them extensively, keep good notes. Get it locked before you discard it as inadequate or useless.

Speaking from experience here: you can waste a lot of time and effort chasing the latest and greatest. No disrespect intended to Mr King, whose contributions to this craft are gratefully acknowledged. But one must learn how to apply them to his/her own work.

All right, great.

But what do you think of diafine for hybrid?

I don't think it offers me much beyond what I can achieve with careful exposure and processing using more-conventional single-bath developers.

The classic advice is always the best: pick one or two films and one developer. Learn everything you can about them, use them extensively, keep good notes. Get it locked before you discard it as inadequate or useless.

On the other hand I prefer the advice of: Experiment like crazy and see where that takes you. Some things immediately turn out to be a touch stone and others can prove to be a dead end. Why not be cyclical in your personal development. Investigate a lot of things superficially, discard what doesn't fit and repeat. If art is about discovery than I see no reason to pursue it like a journeyman.


Sorry I have nothing to offer regarding Sandy's article. As much as I like Sandy I wouldn't read VC if I was paid to do so. Since we are repeating or making up bromides: Why reinvent the wheel? When someone who knows their stuff says "do this" and you need or want to do "this" better than you might want to at least try it.

I wonder:

- are we all to buy gallons of diafine and toss our gallons of d76 and perceptol?
- how does pyrocat hd compare to diafine for scanning?

I was rather surprised to see Sany King advocate diafine, considered he's the inventor of pyrocat hd.

Sandy makes some excellent points in his article. But as always there are many paths to the waterfall. Some people like one, some another, some another still.

The neat thing about scanning to me is that, if the operator sets up the scanning software / hardware correctly, the scanner applies its full digital range to whatever density range is on the film. For example, assuming 8 bit, the scanner gives you a range of 0-255 if your density range is 3.0 or 0.3.

What this means to me in practice is that it's "safe" to develop your film to a lower density. For exampe, in Zone System terms, you can make your "N" development less, say what a darkroom photographer would call "N-1" or so. This compresses the tones on film slightly but the scanner then decompresses the tones into the full digital range. As long as you don't push it too hard it's perfectly safe.

Now, why would you want to do that anyway? Because graininess is directly related to density. If you lower your density, you lower your graininess.

Also, density is made up of metallic silver, which means that density is also directly related to Callier Effect. Less density, less silver, less light scatter. Less Callier Effect means a scan file with less highlight compression due to the light scatter. Which means you have to do less work in Photoshop to get the beautiful highlight separation most of us want.

So... if you are *ever* going to print your film in the darkroom, optimize for the darkroom. If you are sure you will never print in the darkroom, you can optimize your film for scanning. This typically means developing a little less density (enough less that it would be really painful to print in the darkroom). How much less depends on your scanner, software, workflow, etc. So you have to experiement to find out where your optimum is.

The joy of a two part developer like diafine is that it limits density automatically -- it exhausts before you can build up too much density. It should work just like Sandy describes.

When I began to prepare the article for View Camera my intention was to include a two-bath version of Pyrocat-HD but it proved to be a bit more complicated than I anticipated so in the end I had to leave it out. I still plan to work out the procedure to use Pyrocat-HD this way but just have not gotten around to it yet.

The main appeal of two-bath development is that it eliminates record keeping in the field and you can develop all of your negatives together in the same bath without fear of too much contrast because the mechanics of two-bath development assures that no matter how long you develop the average gradient will be limited to a known CI. I did not say that it gave better results than one bath developers, only that it simplifies exposure and development if you plan to scan because all you really need to do is to develop all of your negatives to a fairly low CI and then do the rest in Photoshop.

It would be a mistake to believe that I no longer recommend Pyrocat-HD because I wrote an article on two-bath development. Depending on the circumstances I might do the full BTZS routine with LF film and Pyrocat-HD or I might just expose for the shadows and develop in a two bath developer.

Sandy King




Hi,

after reading Sandy King's article:

http://www.viewcamera.com/documents/pages48-55.pdf

I wonder:

- are we all to buy gallons of diafine and toss our gallons of d76 and perceptol?
- how does pyrocat hd compare to diafine for scanning?

I was rather surprised to see Sany King advocate diafine, considered he's the inventor of pyrocat hd.

Or maybe diafine vs pyrocat hd is the subject of another article?

My ignorance wins here: less density = less time in developer so fixer takes away more silver right?

My ignorance wins here: less density = less time in developer so fixer takes away more silver right?

Almost. yes, sort of. The way it works is this... Light photons change the state of the very top layer of molecules. It's a very small tracing on the top... Then developer comes thru and like a roto rooter develops everything in its path. The thing that makes photography happen is that it follows the tracing that was originally set down by the photons.

It's basically an reduction/oxidation, or redox, reaction. It's been a lot of years since I had to explain this to anyone so I will consult the book before I say any more.... lest I put my foot in it.

The fixer then washes away undeveloped silver bromide. It's not a controllable factor, unless you use one that is too strong, etc.

I hope this answers a thing for two for you...

Lenny
EigerStudios

BTW, I was hardly involved in anything revolutionary in the article on two-bath development in View Camera. To the contrary, I established in the article that two-bath development is historically a very old method, even pre-dating the demands of the miniature camera, which made it much more popular. Ansel Adams used two-bath development for negatives that needed compensation, and in addition to Diafine I tested a version of D23 that goes by his name, the Ansel Adams divided D-23 formula.

The point of the article, which is suggested in the title, is that two-bath development can be a very practical system of exposure and development that obviates the need for record keeping in the field, *when* the resulting negative will be scanned and the file adjusted in Photoshop.

Sandy King

This has been an interesting thread – reading about various film and developer combos people use when the film is intended for scanning. Here is my two cents worth:
I have switched completely to the new TMax 400, both for medium format and for 4x5. High speed AND fine grain in the same emulsion. I think this is the best B+W film ever and thanks to Kodak, whatever the merits of their long-term business plan.
I develop in a JOBO. The consistency of my negs and their evenness of tone took a great leap forward when I bought a JOBO and I will not willingly return to the bad old days. Am I missing out on some acutance, edge effects, etc? Probably. But I sincerely doubt I would see the difference on the palladium prints I normally make. Nor on the gum bichromate prints, nor the lith prints. Maybe I would see it if I still printed in silver gelatin with an enlarger. Or maybe not. Back in the day I learned how to do unsharp masking for analog negatives and spent several months unsharp masking all my prints. And by looking closely I could actually see a difference. And after about six months I decided it was not a difference that mattered to me. I tend to like softer, more muted effects in my prints and unsharp masking was not worth the trouble. I expect I would feel the same about other various edge effects even if I could see them.
I develop in Xtol 1:3. This developer gives full film speed plus fine grain and is relatively non poisonous (compared to the pyros, anyway). I do not need two bath or compensating developers. Compensating developers were great when printing on silver gelatin papers where there was a need to keep full development and contrast in the shadows while restricting density in the highlights. With scanning and Photoshop this is no longer an issue. I give enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows and keep development short enough to avoid too much density in the highlights. The scanner and Photoshop then allow me to place as much contrast as I desire in any tonal range. One of the pyro developers might give me even finer grain, but my initial experiments with pyro developers and the JOBO were not happy and I have lost any urge to experiment further in that direction.

I enjoy reading of ways that people push photo technology to its limits. But for my personal images, not every push is needed.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

With scanning and Photoshop this is no longer an issue. I give enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows and keep development short enough to avoid too much density in the highlights. The scanner and Photoshop then allow me to place as much contrast as I desire in any tonal range.

....


Cheers, Ron Reeder

I am still experimenting with my scanner and developers, but I think you are spot on.

I agree that you won't see the difference in acutance from edge efects printing in palladium with digital negatives, or in straight digital printing for that matter. The resolution of the printer itself limits one to about 7 l/mm on the Pictorio OHP, or in direct digital printing on paper. In fact, you would not see the difference in palladium even in printing with much higher resolution in camera negatives because the resolution of palladium on art paper is also quite low, less than 10 l/mm for sure.

On the other hand, a contact print on silver paper and/or a contact print on carbon using a smooth surface final support, are both easily capable of 40 l/mm or more. In order to appreciate the higher resolution one would need to view the print at close distance, and even then some people would not see the increased resolution/detail because of the limitation of vision of the human eye. But it is there nonetheless.

Even in the face of that reality some people would prefer to print digitally or with digital negatives because of the added controls in Photoshop.

Sandy










I develop in a JOBO. The consistency of my negs and their evenness of tone took a great leap forward when I bought a JOBO and I will not willingly return to the bad old days. Am I missing out on some acutance, edge effects, etc? Probably. But I sincerely doubt I would see the difference on the palladium prints I normally make. Nor on the gum bichromate prints, nor the lith prints. Maybe I would see it if I still printed in silver gelatin with an enlarger. Or maybe not.
Cheers, Ron Reeder

I am taking a part of this thread (reducing grain) to apug. Will be back with results of my experiments.

are we all to buy gallons of diafine and toss our gallons of d76 and perceptol?

In a word, YES! I've been wading into these waters and can tell you the water is fine, come on in... in today's complex life, finding simplicity is a wonderful treat. With this new found simplicity, I am able to focus more on the subject, which is what it is all about for me. In my process, the simplicity to focus on the subject is facilitated by using an easy to use film camera and now a film and developer combination that is a no brainer in the field. As a bonus, there is the aesthetic of film, i.e., smooth tonal transition and a look that is captivating.

That said, if you have a process that works for you, stick with it. It took you time to develop the disicpline and to master your process, which is part of your larger creative process. Taking away parts of your creative process can have unintended and unexpected adverse consequences. For me it was liberating, but probably is not for everyone... truly a case where YMMV.

Sandy - thank you for doing the work required to share this information with the community.

Thanks,

Jay

This thread has been idle for some time. I too have heard of diafine as a great hybrid developer, where the target isn't a wet darkroom but a scanner.

I am all for experimenting to see what the best combination of ingredients is. However, there is something to be said for the look each recipe yields. For me, the developer selection is an important ingredient that helps express the images we create. Settling on any one developer would decrease the variety of looks we work with and to me that is one of the reasons to work a hybrid process.

I second the thanks to Sandy for sharing the information.

pierods, did you ever do some experiments?

This thread has been idle for some time. I too have heard of diafine as a great hybrid developer, where the target isn't a wet darkroom but a scanner.

I am all for experimenting to see what the best combination of ingredients is. However, there is something to be said for the look each recipe yields. For me, the developer selection is an important ingredient that helps express the images we create. Settling on any one developer would decrease the variety of looks we work with and to me that is one of the reasons to work a hybrid process.

I second the thanks to Sandy for sharing the information.

pierods, did you ever do some experiments?

Hi,

actually I abandoned hybrid photography.

After you do it for a while, You understand a few facts. [Just my opinion, your mileage may vary - also my reasoning only applies to b/w].

THE problem is that in traditional silver photography, every step is optimized towards producing an image WITH AN ENLARGER.

When you put a negative under a scanner, you are in fact creating a positive.

The software determines a certain degree of illumination and then scans the negative.

Let's say, for the sake of example, that for a certain negative, you are satisfied with the image exactly as it is. Then you scan the negative at a certain intensity of light, that renders it the same way is was exposed, and then you are good.

You are not! A scanner sensor is lines and lines and lines of photosites, on which you are projecting at a very close distance an image created on silver crystals of irregular shape. The scanner is bound to pick up, at that close distance, a megaton of crystal edges (you lose definition and midtones like crazy)

If you were doing the same thing with an enlarger, since the distance between the paper and the negative is something like 1 meter, you get a much higher resolution and way better midtones (you don't see the crystal edges that much).

But let's say you can live with that. There is another fact which is even more important. A LOT of photos need retouching, which translates in dodging and burning with an enlarger, and digital dodging and burning in photoshop.

In that case you have two options. Either you scan your negative with a much higher illumination, so to recover detail in shadows, or you scan the negative 3/4 times each time with a different degree of illumination.

In the first case, you see the crystal edges EVEN MORE, and plus you see them ALL OVER THE PHOTO. So you are losing twice or thrice the resolution, highlights are totally blown, and shadows are extremely noisy. When you burn the highlights with photoshop, to take the highlights back, you are posterizing like crazy.

In the second case, since the scans with recovered shadows are very noisy, so not to lose even more definition, you will use your scanner at full resolution, which for example produces a 40 meg file on a 35 mm nikon coolscan.

So you are combining 4 files of 40 megs each in photoshop to get an image that has less resolution and midtones than a digital one taken with a nikon d40 for example.

With an enlarger, all of this does not happen, because you are doing your dodging and burning within the SAME exposure, so you are still respecting the overall correct time of exposure for midtones.

You could use tab grain film (tmax etc) where the crystals have less edges. BUT - since you are using film, you want to be creative and so dip your tmax in Rodinal, FX-1 etc. SOL! Negs look like manure! Tmax only wants regular developers! Back to square one!

Then I tried 20 ISO film. It works very nice, it's got the same small grain than tmax, and you can use rodinal and so forth.

Have you taken a photo at 20 ISO? You need a tripod in full sunshine.

Another option is to scan medium format so to lose less detail. Let's do a little math. A MF scanner, 7 grands (nikon coolscan). One MF scan at full resolution, 120 megs, so you need a computer that can hold in memory 3 or 4 120 meg files in photoshop. That's an expensive computer.

In this last case you go back to having the resolution and midtones of a nikon d40 ($100 used on ebay).

Oh just a moment, 4 scans/frame on a 36 exposure roll take 3 hours by the way!

I think that the only way hybrid photo works is when you scan a print from an enlarger.

Sorry for being negative, just a reality check.

Pierods,

I think you better find some more up to date information. A Nikon 9000 isn't $7000. A computer that can handle 3 or 4 files of 120 meg at the same time isn't an expensive one.

You had some decent enough info in your post, but changing the manner in which you expose and process film....and scan it (your scanning workflow sounds bizarre) would allow you to have superb results.

Case in point...I see plenty of stunning B&W work from scanned B&W film. In other words, if some people are able to do it, it isn't impossible. It just means if you aren't obtaining the same high quality results, then YOU are doing something wrong....it isn't the fault of the technology.

There's the reality check!

Sorry,

I was wrong, a nikon 9000 is in fact "only" $ 2,199. (a d700 is $ 2,399 )

And a computer is not very expensive.

You are right, you can obtain excellent results, and my workflow might be bizarre.

As I indicated, your mileage may vary.

If scanning floats your boat, by all means, do that.

If you have the time, money and energy to do that, more power to you!

What's not free, my friend, is time, film and chemicals...and you will need a LOT of those to achieve the excellent results you are talking about, and specifically much longer than using either a pure silver or a pure digital approach.

Respectfully yours.