From: Christina Z. Anderson (tracez@mcn.net)
Date: 03/18/01-11:09:38 AM Z
The water comment was just a possible variable that I threw out for why
my negs are always green, never yellow as the original poster was saying.
And, not having a chemist bone in my body, I was wondering if there was a
particular water substance that would make something greener than
yellower...sulfur being plentiful here in MT with hot springs abounding.
Carl made the more obvious suggestion of the film affecting the color of the
stain, but then I went back to the original post and Bill used HP5 which I
also used and got green--pickle green. He used PMK also, which I
use--however, my PMK is from the Ph Formulary, maybe Bill's was not? But,
come to think of it, the original negatives I processed in PMK at the
Formulary, when I TA'ed for Hutchings, were more yellow, a brassy yellow (in
painter's experience this would be to add green, tho) than the negs I
produce here in Bozeman. So I don't have a clue, but nevertheless I've
never had a problem with low contrast with any of them, except the
underexposed/underdeveloped ones. And printing them on watercolor paper
with liquid emulsion even....they...were really bad (why I tried to
resurrect them I do not know).
But it seems to me that the stain color does not affect the contrast of
the print, or at least I have read that fact. It just reads as density, so
it probably doesn't matter that my negs are one color and his another. I'm
still guessing that the thinness of his negs is what may be leading to the
lack of contrast, and the more yellow than green in his negs. And, also, I
went to someone's website who scanned his pyro negs and they were green,
too. Bill, do a web search on pyro; I wish I had kept that person's URL
because it was neat to see his stuff.
Bill, when you try a roll of PMK with increased exposure and increased
development, please write back to the group what color the negs are and if
they print for you with a 2 filter. Really, once you get pyro to work for
you, it's wonderful. I'm one of those horrendous converts (like reformed
smokers). OH, I don't remember either what kind of enlarger you are using,
as maybe that is the missing variable here--mine is a condenser enlarger,
which is 1 grade higher contrast than a diffusion enlarger.
Chris
From: Carl Weese <cweese@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Pyro and variable contrast paper
>
> >
> > I didn't see that the Montana water changed the outcome or stain of my
film
> > that I processed at the Formulary. at least well within normal.
> >
> > Eric J. Neilsen
>
> I didn't run any film while I was in Montana, but the water didn't make
any
> noticable change in expected results from the various pt/pd combinations I
> used in the class.
>
> OTOH, the water supply at my studio in Hartford some years ago made for
> significantly different film development from my lab at home, 45 miles
away.
>
> ---Carl
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST