Carl Weese (cjweese@wtco.net)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:27:42 -0500
Steve Shapiro wrote:
>
> I'mnot going to grudge with anybody, but I'd be willing to make a negative,
> process with Ilford Microphen and with my careful methods of long, tedious
> developing come out with a negative just as good or better in all
> qualifications as pyro, PMK or rollo Pyro.
>
> I'm NOT talking about pyro A,B,C, okay?
>
> Then, we can submit our negs to Weese or Sullivan or Lavin, pay for the
> chemicals, and let them judge. Fair? Comments from the judges I just
> volunteered? Suggestions for other judges? Volunteers for judges?
>
> I can spare the neg.
>
> Terms: In Camera 8X10 with Bergger 200.
>
> SS
You've set tough terms for yourself, because in my tests BPF probably
shows the greatest improvement of any film for Pt/Pd printing when
developed in pyro.
Just for the record, the only reason I switched to pyro development is
because I find it easier to make a good print from a negative developed
in pyro. Simple as that, and akin to why I use large cameras and make
contact prints--because it's easier to get a good print that way than by
enlarging.
Of course the only way to run your test is if a second negative is shot
of exactly the same scene, exposed and developed properly in pyro. You
can't compare a print to an abstract idea. My prediction if the test
were to be done is that both results will be very good, but definitely
not identical or "matched", and the question of which is "better" may
come down to an issue ofpersonal taste and judgement.
---Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48