Technically, why do Typon and AGFA GO210p need to be multicontrast when Sep Neg
2 achieves the same results without filters as so do in camera films.
I have no sentimental attachment to the Kodak product. It costs more but, we
think it does the job better. In fact is the subtlety of gradation across the
contrast range that leads us to use the Kodak product. I accept that the problem
may have been in the printing, but the printers were photographers who I have
known and respected for years. Their use of potassium chlorate may have been a
contributory factor. I also accept that there may be no method of measuring
subtlety with a densitometer but my subjective reaction, and that of the
colleague with whom I work on large platinum prints, is that it is worth paying
the extra money. And that was a commercial decision. I use the Typon equivalent
to GO 210p for large gum negatives and I use other Agfa graphic arts products as
well as in camera sheet film and both b&w and colour transparency film. I try
to use the best film for the job whatever the colour of the box. And to this end
I am always ready to receive, and where I can, to receive advice.
I thank you and the others who have contributed very much for your helpful
comments.
One notices that sometimes the sequence of inward and outward postings may make
it seem that one's polite comments to someone else may appear rude to someone
who has kindly given advice but whose message had not arrived when the other
comments were sent. I see no answer to this problem.
Terry King