Re: HP5+ for alternative processes

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/02/04-05:04:41 PM Z
Message-id: <a0602042ebc93a130c125@[]>


To be direct.

You sign as M.

Are you Terry King?

Sandy King

>In a message dated 02/04/2004 22:22:25 GMT Standard Time,
> writes:
>>I have no experience with amidol.
>>As for your question about Pyrocat-HD and HP5+ many people are
>>convinced (and I am definitely one of them) that for a variety of
>>reasons pyro staining and tanning developers give better results
>>than traditional developers. For more information see my article on
>>pyro developers at
>>Sandy King
>The difficulty is that people do not compare like with like.
>Similar claims for pyro have been made for many years, although the
>evidence does not appear to support them.
>As there seems to be a need to clarify the position, a group of us
>are conducting objective comparative tests with Tri X, HP5 developed
>in various pyro developers and FP4 developed in pyro, PQ Universal
>and amidol which, those who know it, have found to be probably the
>best developer for alternative processes of any available. It is
>also a beautiful developer for silver gelatine paper. I really do
>recommend that you should try it.
>It is probably true that films with modern grain structures such
>Tri X and HP5, which are designed to flatten off at a density of
>about 1.8, will show a slight increase in quality for alternative
>process printing if they are developed in pyro rather than standard
>developers. But when platinum prints made from negatives
>developed in pyro are compared with prints made from negatives made
>from films with a traditional grain structure such as FP4, developed
>in amidol or PQ Universal, it is clear that the FP4 has the
>advantage in terms of density range and subtlety of gradation.
>In order to help us conduct our comparative test, I wonder if you
>could be kind enough to post the formula for the pyro developer you
>mentioned. It would be good to test about a dozen different pyro
>developers in order to give the test scientific credibility.
Received on Fri Apr 2 17:08:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/14/04-02:14:30 PM Z CST