I'm asked off-list a question I can't answer (what can I say, it happens),
but am sure the answer is out there somewhere, so here goes:
A new alt-printer wants to begin large negative making with lith developed
in pyro, and asks
> > 1) would you recommand Pyro (PMK) as a developer? If no, which other, or
> > some other developer along with Pyro?
I told him I'd HEARD that someone had good results with pyro on lith and
that the information was linked to the Bostick and Sullivan Web page,
address
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>
tho perhaps Dick will confirm if that is so...
I myself use dilute Dektol (1:7 to 1:10), and have had good results with a
soft-working glycin developer, which I didn't test as much as I meant to,
tho it looked VERY promising. (If anyone asks, I'll dig up the formula &
post.) I know others have reported success with other developers, but
reports on lith and pyro have been scanty, as I recall.
The next question was,
> > 2) Is it possible to use along with Pyro the method of density > >
determination with the step wedges you described in PFP #1 (I mean, > >
considering the stain which Pyro builds, which, so I read, lets the neg >
> appear more flat than it prints)?
This I think could probably not be done as I describe, because you
couldn't read the *printing* density of the negative by eye. I also
guessed that the effect would vary from medium to medium as the spectral
sensitivity of the different emulsions varies.
My thought was that if one had a densitometer, it would be easy (and
interesting) to compare the printing effect of similar *readings* on two
step negatives, one with the stain and one without... One of the "to-do's"
on my back burner. I recall that Maxim Muir reported a definite
intensification effect from sulfide toning a negative -- which also, I
assume, would not read correctly on a densitometer. I've had similar
effects from selenium toning and chromium intensifying negatives: the
changes of color apparently equalled more film density in printing, but
I never tested this in a methodical way.
So my other thought was that with all the pyro-niks on this list, there
should be some better answers available. I also suggested that it might be
prudent not to BEGIN with pyro, because it might have too many variables
for a first effort, but that I was reluctant to discourage something I'd
like to find out myself.
Thanks in advance,
Judy, et al.