> In a message dated 98-05-27 23:41:03 EDT, Lildagover writes:
>
> << Has anyone tried a phenidone-only devloper (POTA or a variant) with lith
> film. Phenidone in a solution of low alkalinity tends to be very low
> contrast.
> >>
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> The content of your message sounded like you meant to send it to the list, but
> it only came to me, so I am forwarding it to the list.
>
> I haven't tried POTA yet, but from the formula I think it will work. In fact,
> most soft-working developer will probably work. I haven't tried it because I
> don't have Phenidone with me, but I think metol-alone or low hydroquinone
> formula in low alkaline will also work. The low alkaline will give lower
> density ingeneral, and the metol alone or low hydroquinone will give better
> toe separation.>
> Dave
To lith lovers & future lith lovers--
Some three years ago I ran an extensive series of tests on lith film --
not as knowledgeable then as Dave Soemarko is now, so I can't guarantee
results ;- ), but I tried POTA, D-23, HC110, Bromophen, D-76, a
soft-working glycin, and several other formulas whose names escape me at
the moment (tho not, for some reason, Rodinal, an oversight).
POTA showed serious mottling and time problems, as did D-23. Some of the
others had other problems -- which is not to say that using them more
knowledgeably couldn't have gotten improved results, but that the only one
better than dilute Dektol in *my* tests was the softworking glycin, which,
as noted, I let drop, amid life's riches.
Another consideration was TIME of development. Someone recently advocated
a development style for camera film of at least 15 minutes, for
consistency, as I recall (margin of error would be smaller on a longer
time). But when doing several test strips for an ENLARGED negative, and
then one or two or even three actual finished negatives -- well I knew I
couldn't teach a class with that kind of development time, and it would in
fact push me over the edge myself. Making enlarged negatives is cruel and
unusual punishment at best -- if just the test strips took an hour, we'd
might as well carry a view camera...
Thus I mentally tuned out any method of developing lith that would take
longer than 5 minutes. Which is not to say it couldn't be stretched to
seven in a pinch.... but that I didn't. Also, lith is a thin emulsion
that works fast -- another point in its favor.
They hadn't invented pyro yet when I did my tests (joke), and the negative
needed for pl-pd is so different from the one for gum, who knows if the
Stuart Melvin (name from memory) results would hold, but pyro surely does
bear trial -- assuming the development times are reasonable. If not, I
would tend to save it for emergencies -- like 16 by 20 film. In which
case, however, David Kachel's SLIMT might be as good or better. That's the
horribly named but quite wonderful Selective Latent Image Manipulation
Technique, which was EXCELLENT for lith, as it turned out, tho more
trouble and taking longer than just plain Dektol.
In other words, I mention some of the criteria & findings of my own
tests... while stressing that my personal failures are hardly definitive.
I hope and trust Dave S. will let Post-Factory publish his findings and
commentaries in the next issue, which will also (as promised) reveal the
secrets of how to get sheet film out of the pack without a thumb print...
cheers,
Judy