Re: HP5+ for alternative processes

Dear LCFSheen@aol.com

To be direct.

You sign as M.

Are you Terry King?

Sandy King

>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 17:08:08 2004