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