Re: HP5+ for alternative processes

In a message dated 02/04/2004 22:22:25 GMT Standard Time, sanking@clemson.edu
writes:

> I have no experience with amidol.
>
>
> As for your question about Pyrocat-HD and HP5+ many people are convinced
> (and I am definitely one of them) that for a variety of reasons pyro staining
> and tanning developers give better results than traditional developers. For
> more information see my article on pyro developers at
> http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html
>
>
> Sandy King
>

The difficulty is that people do not compare like with like.

Similar claims for pyro have been made for many years, although the evidence
does not appear to support them.

As there seems to be a need to clarify the position, a group of us are
conducting objective comparative tests with Tri X, HP5 developed in various pyro
developers and FP4 developed in pyro, PQ Universal and amidol which, those who
know it, have found to be probably the best developer for alternative processes
of any available. It is also a beautiful developer for silver gelatine paper.
I really do recommend that you should try it.

It is probably true that films with modern grain structures such Tri X and
HP5, which are designed to flatten off at a density of about 1.8, will show a
slight increase in quality for alternative process printing if they are
developed in pyro rather than standard developers. But when platinum prints made
from negatives developed in pyro are compared with prints made from negatives
made from films with a traditional grain structure such as FP4, developed in
amidol or PQ Universal, it is clear that the FP4 has the advantage in terms of
density range and subtlety of gradation.

In order to help us conduct our comparative test, I wonder if you could be
kind enough to post the formula for the pyro developer you mentioned. It would
be good to test about a dozen different pyro developers in order to give the
test scientific credibility.

M
Received on Fri Apr 2 16:21:59 2004