Re: HP5+ for alternative processes

Pete

> Dear LCFSheen@aol.com
>
> To be direct.
>
> You sign as M.
>
> Are you Terry King?
>
> Sandy King

Yes I wonder to do a Mark hehehehe

Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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 17:29:14 2004