Re: HP5+ for alternative processes

From: Dave Rose ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/02/04-11:55:26 PM Z
Message-id: <006f01c41940$430c56e0$c6cc9045@Dave>

I question the credibility of "M", who refuses, when asked directly, to
identify himself/herself. Why the pseudonym?

As for the mysterious "group of us" and the exotic sounding "cyanotype rex &
chrysotype rex" processes, this sounds like a lot of hype designed to drum
up interest in and attendance for the upcoming APIS 2004.

In fact, if you go to the link that "M" recommends: you'll find Terry King's webpage. Follow
the "How To" link for more information on "Cyanotype rex and Chrysotype rex"
to view a few images, very vague descriptions, and a promotion for APIS
2004. Absolutely nothing on "How To" perform these processes.

I use HP5+ for most of my 4x5 B&W work. I'm processing it with D76 and Zone
System exposure/development. For the silver, gum, and cyanotype prints I'm
making it more than meets my needs.

Best regards,
Dave Rose
Powell, Wyoming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy King" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: HP5+ for alternative processes

> Dear
> 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.
> >
> >M
Received on Fri Apr 2 23:50:24 2004

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