 |
| Fg 1 |
Over the
past several weeks I have been tidying up and cleaning out the darkroom making it ready for the winter
season. I don't know about the rest of
you but I end up with a number of storage leaves full of negatives hanging
around from previous printing sessions. While sorting them into order I noticed
that a number of them were marked PMK Pyro afterbath. Wait a minute, these negs
look more tanned than when I first processed them!. I did mention in another
post that on first comparison the differences were slight and therefore not
worth doing. On comparing the negatives now, the afterbath tinting stands out.
( see Fg1) Which would suggest that the developer continues to oxidise over
time to some degree.
After giving
this some thought I wondered if there would be any differences in how they
printed, the only way to find out would be a practical comparison. I didn't
think it would be enough to judge PMK against its self so I introduced a set of
ID11 processed negatives to the equation. Both developers produce a fine grain
just how fine I was not sure.
Materials
for the comparison.
 |
| ID11 negative. |
All the
negatives are FP4 + 120 format and 6x6 in size. (the 6 x 4.5 negatives in Fg 1
were substituted for another set) Surprisingly they were all developed for 14
minutes in their respective developers. The afterbath neg's were exposed using
a Zero Pinhole camera and to be honest is the only time I have used the
afterbath. All the negatives are printed on Ilford Multigrade RC gloss and processed in Ilford MG developer using
the split grade printing method.
In the
darkroom.
The first
thing I noticed was the difference in the clarity of the grain in the focus
finder. The ID11 negatives were easy to focus, they had a defined grain
pattern. The next neg I looked at was the PMK without afterbath these had a
smoother looking grain pattern making it a little difficult to focus. The
afterbath negatives had an even finer grain pattern, taking longer again to
bring into sharp focus.
 |
| PMK Pyro negative without afterbath |
The printing
of each negative was straight forward. Once the pictures were completely dry I
placed the three of them together in front of the window on a bight day to
study them. The first thing I noticed
was that the PMK negative prints looked warmer than the ID11 print; had a
cooler more black and white look. I find that Ilford papers tend to have a
warmer feel in comparison to the Foma papers I use. Next I noticed that the
ID11 print looked crisper, sharper perhaps than the others this maybe be
because the contrast was more defined or as other people have suggested that
PMK negatives are softer due to the staining affect this developer has. One
thing is for sure the afterbath neg is softer contrast wise, this was
noticeable when it was being printed; as a rule of thumb I have found when
setting the contrast part of the split grade method the timing is about half
the time needed for the toned section. In this case it needed more and still
looks soft.
Conclusions.
 |
| PMK Pyro negative with afterbath |
It would be
unfair to conclude that the afterbath negatives were less sharp as they were
taken with a lens-less camera and softer to start with. But when considering
the other PMK Pyro negative I can say that it appears to be softer in sharpness
when compared to the ID11 picture. With that in mind you could conclude by
association that they would have been softer again. Therefore adding credence
to those claims that PMK Pyro used with afterbath are less sharp but more
subtly toned. When compared in isolation you would be hard pressed to notice a
difference at all.
I believe
that it is down to individual tastes when it comes to sharpness and if it was
not for this comparison I would be none the wiser as far as my eyes are
concerned. And that is all that counts.
