Re: Pyro Developers

From: Susan Huber ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/04/04-03:22:18 PM Z
Message-id: <005201c41a8a$ea1e9ba0$f391c8cf@ownereb7xeo44n>

Hello Carl,
I totally agree- using those large cameras are fun and easy- especially if
one is far-sighted.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Weese" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pyro Developers

> >Do this test.
> Sandy
> That's all well and good for testing resolution, but I for one (making
> direct contact prints from large format negatives) don't much care about
> resolution--there's more than enough to go around. I think a great deal of
> time is wasted by photographers chasing around after "sharpness"--almost
> much as is wasted chasing "dmax". I'm much more concerned with tone,
> especially the ability to distinguish very fine tonal differences in a
> while maintaining, if needed, a short overall range. For this, I find that
> pyro-stained negatives are better than MQ negatives. Some pyro formulas
> better at it than others. Not every picture will be markedly better using
> pyro, but my estimate is that maybe 7 out of 10 will be.
> Basically I work on the premise of productive laziness. I use large and
> ultra-large format cameras because I'm lazy: they make it easier to get
> prints. I put on gloves and use pyro negative development for the same
> reason--it makes it easier to get good Pt/Pd prints.
> ---Carl
Received on Sun Apr 4 15:22:37 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/14/04-02:14:31 PM Z CST