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,
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.