Re: Apologies for the Confusion over the Pyrocat-HD Formula

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 01/02/02-10:37:59 PM Z


On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Sandy King wrote:

> 2) The present misunderstanding results from a Note to the article in
> The Unblinkingeye , which states, "The formula provided here differs
> from the one published in Post-Factory Photograhy, issue #4.
> ......... An earlier version of the formula published on the
> rec.photo.darkroom newsgroup called for .25 grams of metol in place
> of the phenidone. Mr. King suggests that this formulation may be more
> stable than the phenidone version."
>
> In fact, the earlier version that was published on the
> rec.photo.darkroom newsgroups called for 2.5g of metol per 100ml, not
> 0.25g. From information provided by Linas Kudzma it now appears that
> the lower amount of metol may be sufficient for the formula to work
> as intended. However, all of my early testing with the Pyrocat-HD
> formula, which I called PCMC at the time, was done with metol in the
> amount of 2.5g per 100ml of stock solution A.
>
>
> Hope this information clears up some of the present confusion.

Sorry, Sandy, around here it adds confusion --

I'd like to include the latest upgraded info in Issue #7 for those who
want it in print and/or aren't on the list, BUT---

I'm confused about the metol. If the version on the rec.darkroom
newsgroup was before Post-Factory (albeit with another name), and had the
metol, whichever amount, why wasn't it in the P-F version? Or did you
change your mind again? Or ...???

I gather it worked with just the phenidone, since at the time reports were
good. So do please unconfuse...

best,

Judy


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/15/02-11:47:41 AM Z CST