FotoDave@aol.com
Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:13:19 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 1/29/99, PM 11:23:26, sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
<<Oh Dave, Dave, Dave, there you go again with this Pyro bashing thing
Sandy, Sandy, Sandy,
I have always have high respect for you and believe what you said including
the properties of pyro. I do not understand why you keep misunderstanding me
as anti-pyro or being a pyro basher.
I have repeatedly said this: I am not against pyro.
>> So, here is what you need to do.Just forget about tests and step wedges and
densitometers and go out and make a few *in-camera* large format negatives
using PMK, and whatever other developer you like ....
Remember this is alt. photo group, and I have been talking (asking) about
making enlarged negatives.
But for *in-camera* negatives, I have specifically mentioned in my long post
about a year ago that there are specific, quantifiable advantages of using
pyro (I did/do acknowledge the advantage / special properties):
1. the filling of the grain spaces between grains which makes the print almost
grainless.
2. the stain which automatically gives that effect of variable contrast
printing on shadows on shadows and highlights, thus make it easier to print as
you have mentioned.
>> If after doing these
tests you don't come to the conclusion that the PMK negatives are much
easier to print and make much better prints (which in turn should prove
that Pyro is a magical developer) there is really no hope for you.
>>
Sandy, I will not do the tests that you (or others) have recommended. Do you
know why? Because I BELIEVE YOU and others when they describe that magic
properties of pyro to me (onlist or offlist)! So many pyro users have
described that properties (and they describe them the same way or in similar
way), so I can / have to believe them. Now, why in the world would I do some
tests to prove something that I already believe???
It is just like it has been mentioned that glycin is a developing agent. I
have not used it but have read it (of course), and I won't go through a test
just to believe that glycin can be used as a developing agent. Or Liam said
you could make your own Prussian Blue. I haven't done it before, but I believe
him, so I don't need to run tests to prove it is true. Or if one adds water to
strong acid, the acid will boil and spill. I have never done that either, but
I won't run some tests to believe it. I might run tests if I DON'T believe
what is written.
Likewise, I believe, I believe, I believe, repeat, I believe, I believe, I
believe in the magic properties of pyro as has been described by you and many
many many people on this list and on other newsgroups / mailing lists.
My interest (forgive me for having an interest in the science of photography)
has been whether such properties can be achieved with a standard developer,
probably with a non-standard development method. It is just an interest.
If I cannot achieve that, fine. If I can show that it can be done, as I said,
I am still not against pyro. Those who have found pyro can give them the
desired result will / should continue to use them. Newcomers can have a
choice, but either way, it doesn't affect me. I simply have the interest.
Is it wrong, illegal, sinful, or unethical to have such interest???
And I still don't understand why you or others think of me as a pyro basher. I
simply cannot understand it. <sigh>
Dave S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:45