>For me, its not a question of cost but one of: convenience and consistancy.
>D76, is an excellent *classic* developer that has withstood the test of
>time. But, if you want to use D76 then you have to start from powder. For
>health reasons, I've been avoiding mixing up chemicals from powder *if* a
>liquid alternative is available. Even if you are careful it's hard to
>avoid some dust escaping that will react with your negatives and lungs. Why
-stuff snipped for brevity-
You make a good point that is so obvious I have over looked it.
I use chemicals on a daily basis at my regular place of work, and as such
I take precautions with all cehmicals. If like me you do it long enough,
it becomes second nature such that you are not even concious of of the fact
that one is taking precautions.
That all being said, and now that I think about it, perhaps the
most common mistake i see people new to chemical mixing make is they
hod everything close to thier face as they are measuring. Not that this
applies in your case, but I've seen others do it.
As for the consitancy of D76, I agree too. That is why I always
like HC-100 - ccheap, efficient, and it stands up well if you leave it in it's
original "gel" and mix only small amounts at a time. For what it is worth,
Xtol seems to be pretty long lived stuff too. Still, I cannot argue with
your use of Tmax developer, in the end, film and chemistry is perhaps the
least expensive part of any photography.
joe
>If you're not living on the edge, then you're taking up too much space.
- I like it!
:)
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
B&W, Large Format Images From Southern Ontario