From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 05/29/01-07:47:09 PM Z
A search through the archive for info on sabatier probably wouldn't get
this info as written, since it was subject-lined "experimental
photography." It is, however, extremely relevant, so I repeat under
"Sabatier," which would presumably lead to the prior thread.
Judy
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> Yes, it is absolutely this "old brown myth" they state: that the reason
> sabatier occurs is that the hydroquinone is exhausted, thus they advocate
If you have it handy see the repro, p. 18, Post-Factory #2, my tastiest
sabatier ever -- Brovira #5 with what I called "hydroquinone-enriched
developer." Blacks extremely deep, midtones a rich brown... This
thru-the-neg sabatier (my "type 4") is different from the plain old, plain
old kind Jolly is talking about, so I figured maybe his advice was OK for
regular, but that's beside the point: the point is they get these
notions, made up essentially out of pure fancy or coincidence or whatever
& claim to have solved riddle of the universe. If I sound peeved, yeah...
he's still peddling that nonsense.
The darkroom, incidentally, was VERY hot that day, and I suspect the
developer was pretty warm too. I was always going to test again with a
tray thermometer.....
Ed Buffaloe did test Rainwater's NEW formula & found it promising -- sold
as R77 in Australia, but that's NOT the solarol. If you want to try the
R77 it's (given also in P-F #2) 1 tsp sodium sulfite, 1/2 tsp catechol, 1
tsp sodium carbonate monohydrate, 1/8 tsp phenidone, 1/8 tsp potassium
bromide in 500 ml water.
> use of a hydroquinone free developer formula which Jolly gives in his paper
> on the web, and Rainwater now sells (in Australia, I think?). They say it
> is not the silver. So, hmmm, what I would need to do is test their
--> developer formula side by side, same day same temp, with used Dektol
and
> see. I, too, in my testing this year, did not find Solarol to work very
> well at all, and my favorite sabatier was with old brown. That was before I
> read Jolly's 5 myths.
Those myths (I forget the other 4, but even so) could rank in photo lore
with Paul Anderson's gum-pigment ratio test.
> ..So I assumed his assessment of why the old brown
> worked was correct. The other thing he said which I find interesting is
> that there are papers that do not work for sabatier because they are
> developer incorporated. Haven't tested that theory out yet, but will..
I think the rapid transit, no that's not the term, the speedo (well you
know the word, I'm blocking on it after all the digital talk today), paper
has developer incorporated. But I know they told us variable contrast
papers wouldn't solarize and THEY DO. So looks to me like it's not won't,
it's didn't by the method(s) tried. Sure, it COULD be "won't," but Jolly
has said too many wrong things, that I know from my own darkroom are
wrong, for me to take anything he says on faith.
I worked almost entirely with the Brovira #5, and do have the sense that
other papers work differently... My guess tho is that Jolly & co did NOT
spend a lot of time actually doing it in the darkroom.
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
............................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:40 AM Z CST