<P>PQ Universal appears to be available in the USA - at least in New York
-- <BR>at around $20 a gallon from B&H, and I imagine from other major dealers. <BR>(Smaller sizes also, though why people should want to pay more I don't <BR>know - just buy the larger one and decant into smaller bottles.)<P>It is a cheap and clean-working developer for all types of paper and sheet <BR>film. The normal paper dilution is 1+9, though you can vary this <BR>considerably. I prefer it to their Multigrade developer (or to Dektol) for <BR>paper, though I also use Agfa Neutol. As Terry may remember from when we <BR>ran the tests I also prefer it to the Amidol formula as it is easier to <BR>get repeatable results.
<P>Peter Marshall <BR> <BR><A HREF="http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/"></A> </BLOCKQUOTE> Surely this test will be around somewhere? May be interesting to me, as i am about to buy a new box of Ilford Newscpoy and might as well switch to FP4, provided I can get some decent back up from previous tests, somewhere in or around the list.
<P>Jacques Verschuren <BR> </HTML> </x-html>From ???@??? Mon Feb 02 16:41:45 1998 Return-Path: <alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca> Received: from skybat.usask.ca ([128.233.1.27]) by mail.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with SMTP id MAA19426; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:06:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from process.sask.usask.ca by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.1-10 #27648) id <01IT3UUUZ7N48Y4ZM1@sask.usask.ca> (original mail from FotoDave@aol.com) ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:01:51 CST Received: from imo29.mail.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com) by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.1-10 #27648) with ESMTP id <01IT3UUTUBJS8Y4ZVD@sask.usask.ca> for alt-photo-process-l-expand@process.sask.usask.ca; Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:01:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from FotoDave@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id SFUKa29294; Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:55:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:55:46 -0500 (EST) From: FotoDave@aol.com Subject: Re: Pyro or Silver - comment To: Kerik.Kouklis@Aerojet.com, ALT-PHOTO-PROCESS-L@skyway.usask.ca Message-id: <ca46cc19.34d624c5@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 52 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list" X-UIDL: bbfd380b8ae38a51756d78e833a2249d Status: U
<< These terms are not "incorrect, bad, worse or wrong". They refer, in the way I use them, to the print. Here is a quote from a previous post of mine:
Yes, I understand what you mean, and I can see that. Actually I thought a lot before I wrote that "incorrect, bad, worse, or wrong" thing. During the thinking, I actually did see the situation where the separation that we discussed can be described as better separation. However, I was just pointing out the technical terms. Of course I also understand we are more interested in making the final good prints, not just interested in technical terms, but those terms are helpful when we do our research or reading.
Given the very straight line curve of TMax film, I don't think we will hear more about "better highlight separation" films from manufacturers in the near future. However, when we hear things like better or improved shadow separation, it means the contrast of the shadows are increased, not compressed. A compressed tones mean worse separation in the technical sense. That was what I was trying to point out. >> The highlight compression in the negative that you discuss results in better separation of these values in the final print, because it brings them into the range that can be printed. So taken in that context, the statements are quite correct, albeit somewhat subjective. >>
Yes, again, I do see your point. I was not trying to and will not argue just for the argument sake. I really do see your point. I am sorry if my statement about "wrong, incorrect, etc." sounded too strong, and I sincerely thank you for your input.
>From the emails that I read off list on on list, it seems that some have mis- read my long (3-part) message. I will post some clarification maybe later today or tomorrow because unfortunately (or fortunately?) today I have to work on my non-photographic works that pay my bills. :)
Thank you and best regards,
Dave