PMK vs Rodinal: results from testing
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
I just emerged from the darkroom having tested PMK versus my good old
Rodinal.
The technical details of the processing stage are lower in this
article.
The Rodinal negative has density and contrast as usual. I have my
processes and procedures standardised using a densitometer on Rodinal.
So the Rodinal negative is my reference.
The PMK negative has a nice stain to it. It looks a bit thinner than
the Rodinal negative, just as Gordon Hutchings described it would. The
difference is not all that great though.
I spend some time (and paper) producing optimum prints from both
negatives, without dodging and burning.
Observations:
1) I noticed that my analyser is about useless with the PMK negative,
due to its staining.
2) Despite the PMK negative looking thinner than the Rodinal negative,
print exposure is actually longer on the same grade.
3) The PMK neg needs a slightly higher contrast paper (half a grade)
4) The development process for PMK is a tad clumsy, because the
developer needs to be refreshed halfway. Leaving out this step results
in underdevelopment due to heavy oxydation. Using nitrogen as
described by Gordon Hutchings is even more clumsy.
5) Pyro is dusty and highly toxic. Rodinal is safer to use. I know PMK
kits are sold in liquid form too, but that is much heavier. It has to
get to me by mail.
6) Printing times for PMK negs are longer, due to the staining.
Usually not a problem, except for really big enlargements.
So I made optimum prints from both, without dodging and burning. I
compare prints on the following points:
1) Appearent Sharpness or acutance
2) Appearent graininess
3) Compensation effects for highlights and shadows.
I must admit I am a bit disappointed. I expected larger differences
than I got. The PMK print seems a bit sharper. Graininess is equal,
but is a tiny bit more noticeable in the Rodinal neg..
As far as the compensation effects are concerned, I noticed hardly a
difference. I expected the PMK neg. to exell here, but it is not
really all that better than Rodinal. On the contrary. I am noticing
just a tad more definition in the Rodinal highlight (garlic), but it
is close. It certainly is not a clear win for PMK.
Does anybody wish to comment?
Technical details of exposure, development and printing.
Film used: Ilford HP-5+ 4x5"
Lighting: Studio flash
Subject: Glass pot with wild rice (near black tones)
Onion and peas (mid tones)
Garlic (high tones)
Development: Jobo CPP-2
2500 drum with 2509n with end caps
20 C (70 F)
Rotation speed P
In Rodinal: Rinse 5'
Rodinal 1+25 8'
Acid stop bath 2'
Fix 2'
Rinse 5'
In PMK: Rinse 5'
PMK 1+2+100 6' (half the required 12')
PMK 1+2+100 6' (second half of 12')
Acid stop bath 2'
Fix 2'
Rinse 20'
Note:
No additional additives were added to the PMK. I am experiencing no
problems with foaming or uneven development. The excessive oxydation
is compensated by completely refresing the developer halfway.
Paper: Agfa MCP RCVC
Enlarger: Durst L1200
Lens: Schneider Componon S 150mm
Aperture: f/16
Rodinal neg: 18" at contrast grade 3.5
PMK neg: 30" at contrast grade 4
Note: I am not using a filter set for VC, but the colorhead.
Michiel
da...@creighton.edu
Ooops! Can anyone give me some times and temps to process this film. It
is tmax 400 iso and I have tmax developer and or Rodinal.
Thanks for the help!
df
Gary Cole
If it's any help, I shot some Tri-X once at 125. I had bulk loaded it
and not marked the cassette. I processed it thinking it was Plus- X
and it came out fine.
Richard Knoppow
>
>
>Ooops! Can anyone give me some times and temps to process this film. It
>is tmax 400 iso and I have tmax developer and or Rodinal.
>Thanks for the help!
>df
>
If you can get some Microdol-X develop it as recommended for normal
in _undiluted_ developer, that will loose nearly a stop of speed. One
stop over that does no harm. Actually, many rate it at half speed.
If you cut the time in Rodinal you will lower the contrast as well
as the density. If you can work with lower contrast negatives reduce
the time to about 2/3ds to 3/4s of normal. That will result in about a
3/4 to one stop loss of speed and lower the contrast by about one
paper grade or a bit more. The negs will still be denser than usual
but quite printible. They will simply have a bit more shadow detail in
them.
Modern film can take enormous overexposure, up to ten stops for some
films, and still not shoulder off. Since grain gets worse with density
and sharpness less with density, keeping exposures on the low side is
best but somewhat overexposed negatives mostly just take a bit longer
to print.
Give that the ISO speed method has no safety factor, and that Rodinal
itself tends to loose a little speed compared to, say D-76 or Xtol,
you should come out fine.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
EFF64
trouble if you just process it normal in Tmax chemistry. In fact you might
find you like the mid tones better. Try it and see. If your really concerned
try looking up TMax at http://www.kodak.com. They have spec on all their film
in all formats. Anyway, that would be my suggestion.
Peace:
Gary
William Hopkins
fixer without hardner( hardner also strips stain) also use 2 minute after
bath in used dev. after fixing and before wash .......Bill
"Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen" <m.fi...@hccnet.nl.nospam> wrote in
message news:38e4a738...@news.hccnet.nl...
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
<whop...@netins.net> wrote:
> You lost stain by using acid stop bath( use water per directions) and
>fixer without hardner( hardner also strips stain) also use 2 minute after
>bath in used dev. after fixing and before wash .......Bill
Right. Done all that. But is gives very stained negatives that require
very long exposure times. My negatives are fairly stained with the
method I descibed.
Are you suggesting I will get more of the advantages with the very
densely stained negatives?
Michiel
Des
I did a very similar comparison about 1 month ago. Rodinal 1:75 vs PMK.
I exposed 2 sheets of 5x7 FP4+. The scene consisted of a heavy cloud
formation including some blue sky and some out of focus tree tops in the
forground. I tray processsed one sheet in Rodinal 1:75 and one in PMK (
acid stop, Ilford rapid fix, 2 min in Kodalk after bath. ) I printed
cropped 8x10 's from each neg onto Record Rapid G2 with a cold light
source. The prints had almost identical contrasts as in both cases as I
had previously calibrated for N with both combinations.
The difference were subtle but still PMK was the clear winner. The
clouds in the PMK print are more 3 dimensional, there seem to be more
greys and subtle tone variations are more apparent. I could not detect
any difference in apparent sharpness between them. Non photographers
and other photographers I show them to prefer the PMK version, some
commenting on the dimensionality of the clouds. Also some point out
that the out of focus tree tops in the PMK print appear to be in front
of the clouds increasing the effect of dimensionality. For me every
subtle improvment is worth pursuing and I am staying with PMK. I am
using the blue channel on my Macbeth densitometer to read neg densities
and although the readings do not represent the exact printing density
compared to a non stained neg they seem consistant enough to use for
calibration purposes.
Cheers
Des
Melbourne Australia
In article <38e4a738...@news.hccnet.nl>,
Des
Melbourne Australia
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Simone Simoncini
this and that about the miracles that formula is supposed to do to your
negatives you just to to the darkroom with a bunch of enthusiasm to realize
that a 100 years old formula coupled with a large format neg gives you just
about the same results. I have made lots of testing myself with the
pyrogallic acid, and in the process i found a question more than an
answer... Is it really worth to spend all that time in trying to dominate
those many more variables (stain, high oxidation and so on) ....
There must be a reason why rodinal is still around, dont you think so?
:-)
Mark Bau
> From: "Simone Simoncini" <s.sim...@sirt.pisa.it>
> Organization: Centro Servizi Interbusiness
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:21:30 +0200
> Subject: Re: PMK vs Rodinal: results from testing
>
> There must be a reason why rodinal is still around, dont you think so?
Pyro developers have been around a lot longer than Rodinal. Must be a reason
why Pyro developers are still around?
Mark
Richard Knoppow
Rodinal has the advantage of being convenient and long-lived in its
concentrated form. Its performance is good but other developers will
beat it for speed and grain.
Pyro has made a comeback due to the work of Gordon Hutchnings, but
has otherwide been considered obsolete since the 1920's. Both really
fall into the catagory of specialized developers. The work at Kodak
labs in the 1920's and later, which devised many Metol-Hydroquinone
formulas, pretty much obsoleted everything used before.
Des
Richard, I am surprised :-) This is like saying that when Mr Heinz put
soup into cans that it made all other soups obsolete. Sure the Heinz
soup is cheaper, more convenient and more popular than making your own
but it is not neccessarily better. MQ developers are cheap, very
reliable, and convenient. These properties are favoured by the
manufacturers and many of the users. Pyro, amidol and glycin etc still
have a place for those who want a bit more than a canned developer.
(no offence intended Richard :-))
Mark Bau
> From: Des <d...@my-deja.com>
> Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 04:26:21 GMT
> Subject: Re: PMK vs Rodinal: results from testing
>
> Richard, I am surprised :-) This is like saying that when Mr Heinz put
> soup into cans that it made all other soups obsolete. Sure the Heinz
> soup is cheaper, more convenient and more popular than making your own
> but it is not neccessarily better. MQ developers are cheap, very
> reliable, and convenient. These properties are favoured by the
> manufacturers and many of the users. Pyro, amidol and glycin etc still
> have a place for those who want a bit more than a canned developer.
Actually, when you get right down to it, PMK, in a non machine lab, is just
as easy to work with as any of the "canned" developers like Rodinal, D76,
ID11 etc, etc. In the US you can now buy PMK in pre mixed liquid form from
several suppliers, it is as simple to mix for use as any developer you care
to name, and apart from the unusual step of pouring the developer back into
the tank after fixing the development process is just as simple as for any
other developer.
The real issue, and I don't want to sound condescending here, is that only
people working at a fairly high standard will notice a difference between
the canned developers and PMK. Nothing separates and holds highlights like
PMK and this virtue alone makes it worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.
Many people have endowed Adams with Sainthood, I think Hutching's is much
more deserving for formulating PMK!
BTW Des. is Vanbars still THE place to get photo supplies in Melbourne?
Mark
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
wrote:
> Nothing separates and holds highlights like
>PMK and this virtue alone makes it worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.
Actually, I did some additional testing (I am the original poster),
specifically looking for this feature.
I made four equal shots on FP4+ (@ ISO 100) from my living room,
looking out into the garden. Exposure for the shadows, obviously.
The four sheets of 4x5" film were processed as follows:
1) Rodinal 1+50 N development
2) PMK with pre-rinse, acid stop without after bath
3) PMK as 2) but without pre-rinse
4) PMK as 2) but with rinse instead of acid stop
Details are lower in this article. As you can see I have varied no
more than one parameter at a time. The only thing I have not tried is
all these options combined with the alkaline after bath. I have used
the after bath, but I got very densely stained negatives. The stain
was generic, so I figured it did not add anything to image quality and
just was getting in the way of comfortable printing...
Now for the review of the negs. All negs have very nice detailing in
shadow areas. They look great on my lightbox.
The Rodinal (1) negative is the reference. Normal contrast and
density. As expected.
The second (2) neg has less density in the garden than the Rodinal
neg, probaby making the neg easier to print. I finally seem to be
getting more of the feature of PMK that I was looking for. In my
earlier attempt I did not notice, but the subject contrast was much
lower. Someone in this thread mentioned the curve for PMK to be
straigh a long way, only compensating the absolute highlights. My negs
seem to confirm this. Still, I am noticing a larger difference with
PMK than before.
The neg without the pre-rinse (3), I was surprised to see, has less
density and contrast than the others. I expected more contrast. But I
guess I can explain this because PMK is a hardening surface developer.
Without the pre-rinse, the PMK is probably getting less deep into the
emulsion and therefore the action is limited more to the surface. I
will check if this leads to higher sharpness. On the face of it, I do
not like the neg without pre-rinse.
Neg 4 without the acid stop bath has more staining, as expected, but
otherwise looks comparable to neg 2. Good quality! This neg has a
contrast a little higher than neg 2. I can see why an acid stop bath
is recommended by Gordon Hutchings for minus up to N development, and
water rinse for N and plus development.
Generally I am pleased with the results. Now, I'll make some prints...
Michiel
Details:
All are processed in Jobo CPP-2 with rotation P at 20C (70F).
1) Rodinal
Rinse 5'
Rodinal 1+50 10'
Acid stop
Fix
Rinse 5'
2) PMK the easy way
Rinse 5'
PMK 5'
PMK 5'
Acid stop
Fix
Rinse 15'
3) PMK without pre rinse
PMK 5'
PMK 5'
Acid stop
Fix
Rinse 15'
4) PMK without acid stop bath
Rinse 5'
PMK 5'
PMK 5'
Rinse 1'
Rinse 1'
Fix
Rinse 15'
Michiel
christer
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen wrote:
>
>
> Generally I am pleased with the results. Now, I'll make some prints...
well that's good, 'cause the only thing that counts is what the prints
look like. We get used to the appearance of our 'normal' negatives and
tend to think all deviations are bad (or good) while in fact they may have
litte effect on the print. And vice versa, what looks like small
differences on the negatives may produce large differences ont the prints.
Mark Rabiner
> manufacturers and many of the users. Pyro, amidol and glycin etc still
> have a place for those who want a bit more than a canned developer.
>
>
> Des
> Melbourne Australia
>
gallon bottles.
But the fact that Xtol stays so clear in the bottle is an exception that does
not bother me. I'll use it anyway. But will try out Pyro soon I got some from
Photographers Formulary. I'll be carefull.
Mark Rabiner
Richard Knoppow
>
>
>> From: Des <d...@my-deja.com>
>> Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
>> Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
>> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 04:26:21 GMT
>> Subject: Re: PMK vs Rodinal: results from testing
>>
>> Richard, I am surprised :-) This is like saying that when Mr Heinz put
>> soup into cans that it made all other soups obsolete. Sure the Heinz
>> soup is cheaper, more convenient and more popular than making your own
>> but it is not neccessarily better. MQ developers are cheap, very
>> reliable, and convenient. These properties are favoured by the
>> manufacturers and many of the users. Pyro, amidol and glycin etc still
>> have a place for those who want a bit more than a canned developer.
>
>Actually, when you get right down to it, PMK, in a non machine lab, is just
>as easy to work with as any of the "canned" developers like Rodinal, D76,
>ID11 etc, etc. In the US you can now buy PMK in pre mixed liquid form from
>several suppliers, it is as simple to mix for use as any developer you care
>to name, and apart from the unusual step of pouring the developer back into
>the tank after fixing the development process is just as simple as for any
>other developer.
>
D-76 wasn't intended to be a "canned" developer.
>The real issue, and I don't want to sound condescending here, is that only
>people working at a fairly high standard will notice a difference between
>the canned developers and PMK. Nothing separates and holds highlights like
>PMK and this virtue alone makes it worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.
>
Well, it is a little condecending. You have absolutely no idea of my
printing abilities (I am pretty good) or judgement of print quality
(very good).
What do you mean by "separating and holding highlights"? Is it
simply shouldering off and having low contrast in the highlights?
Pyro stain is in effect a highlight mask when used with
orthochromatic paper like RC paper. Otherwise Pyro developers have no
inherant compensating power although compensating developers can be
made with them.
Compensation of highlights, or the lowering of highlight contrast
may be desirable for some images and not for others.
Further, PMK is a "modern" developer, much different than the
traditional Pyro developers.
>Many people have endowed Adams with Sainthood, I think Hutching's is much
>more deserving for formulating PMK!
>
I don't attribute Ansel Adams with sainthood. He was an artist and a
very good teacher. I think his value to the photographic community lay
in that teaching. No one familiar with his books would get the idea
that he ever suggested that he had a monopoly on wisdom. He simply
passed along techniques which he found worked for him and he thought
might be valuable to others.
Hutchings did some important photographic chemistry, I don't want to
denigrate him in any way. However, If he deserves cannonisation so
does Geoffrey Crawley, Richard Henn, John I. Crabtree, and the folks
who cooked up Xtol, to namel only a few.
>BTW Des. is Vanbars still THE place to get photo supplies in Melbourne?
>
>Mark
>
---
Mark Bau
> From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
> Reply-To: dick...@ix.netcom.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:44:38 GMT
> Subject: Re: PMK vs Rodinal: results from testing
>
> Well, it is a little condecending. You have absolutely no idea of my
> printing abilities (I am pretty good) or judgement of print quality
> (very good).
> What do you mean by "separating and holding highlights"? Is it
> simply shouldering off and having low contrast in the highlights?
> Pyro stain is in effect a highlight mask when used with
> orthochromatic paper like RC paper. Otherwise Pyro developers have no
> inherant compensating power although compensating developers can be
> made with them.
> Compensation of highlights, or the lowering of highlight contrast
> may be desirable for some images and not for others.
> Further, PMK is a "modern" developer, much different than the
> traditional Pyro developers.
I knew it wouldn't sound right! The point I was trying to make is that a lot
of people in this ng are relative newbies. Asking a newbie to get into pyro
or even just selenium toning can be silly. If you are just learning to print
you probably will not appreciate the difference (or even be able to see a
difference) in a properly processed fiber, selenium toned print. Ditto for
PMK, only after a lot of developing and printing can the subtleties of PMK
be appreciated.
That said, I stand by my statement that PMK does things to high values that
no other developer I've used approaches. PMK is not a miracle solution, in
fact I prefer ID11/D76 for their midtone abilities. But I do a lot of work
with clouds and IMO nothing comes close to what PMK gives me with clouds.
I have no doubt that you indeed are a very good printer and your technical
knowledge is one of the things I enjoy most about this ng. There are simply
too many photographers in this world doing too many things to write off any
one process or procedure. PMK works for a lot of what I do, if you use
another developer or film or whatever, that only proves the wonderful
versatility of our medium, whatever works for you, or me, is all that
matters.
Mark
Des
Mark Bau <mar...@altavista.com> wrote:
> SNIP
>
> BTW Des. is Vanbars still THE place to get photo supplies in
Melbourne?
>
> Mark
>
>
large range of photo supplies including the basic chemicals for mixing
your own developers.
--
George Pappas
I have been using PMK in a Jobo for two years now with VP 120 and love
it. I noticed something in your technical data. You indiciated that
you are using the "P" setting for agitation on your Jobo. This runs
counter to Hutching's recommendation and may be the reason you are
getting too much of the "bad stain" that results from oxidation and
simply adds base density instead of the "good stain" that is acutally
related to the highlights themselves and proportional.
I use the lowest agitation setting on my CPP-2 for the development and
afterbath steps; it lessens the oxidation stain. You may want to try
one batch with this to see if it makes any difference for you.
Best Regards,
George
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:03:59 GMT, m.fi...@hccnet.nl.nospam (Michiel
Fierst van Wijnandsbergen) wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I just emerged from the darkroom having tested PMK versus my good old
>Rodinal.
>
>The technical details of the processing stage are lower in this
>article.
>
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
wrote:
>I have been using PMK in a Jobo for two years now with VP 120 and love
>it. I noticed something in your technical data. You indiciated that
>you are using the "P" setting for agitation on your Jobo. This runs
>counter to Hutching's recommendation and may be the reason you are
>getting too much of the "bad stain" that results from oxidation and
>simply adds base density instead of the "good stain" that is acutally
>related to the highlights themselves and proportional.
You've hit the nail on its head. That is exactly my point. I am
getting too much general stain and too little image related stain.
>I use the lowest agitation setting on my CPP-2 for the development and
>afterbath steps; it lessens the oxidation stain. You may want to try
>one batch with this to see if it makes any difference for you.
I have tried it with rotation set to F (slowest speed) and 4,
following Gordon's directions. However, my HP5+ 35mm film had uneven
development that I blamed to the slow rotation speed. Perhaps I am
wrong in assuming that?
I admit I did not run with the two step development at that time,
because I had not noticed the developer was oxidized halfway through.
Oxidation is a problem, because my two step development method gives
much better negatives than pooring in developer once.
I am very interested to hear what speeds you use for 4x5", 120 and
35mm.
Michiel
hagaik
a problem, and base stain was very heavy, making the whole thing
unprintable. After some (failed) experiments with the CPE, I switched
to using the Jobo 2500 tank+ 2509n reel (6 films) in a conventional,
that is, manual agitation. My procedure is basically this:
in 21c
water 2 min
PMK 1:2:130 11-12 min
wash 1 min
plain fixer 5 min
used developer 2 min
wash 30 min
In the developer, I flip the tank twice every 20 seconds.
I don't get almost any base stain, Image is very stained, development
very even.
P.S - I shoot tri-x 4"x5"
good luck
--
Hagai Kaufman
Tel Aviv
Israel
hag...@matnasim.org.il