Re: HP5+ for alternative processes

I question the credibility of any so-called objective tests produced
by "the group of us" who have in their own words already concluded
that the combination of FP4 and amidol has been "found to be probably
the best developer for alternative processes."

Folks with agenda generally will see what that want to see, and find
what they want to find.

Case in point. Weapons of mass destruction.

Sandy King

>I'm looking forward to hearing the results of your film tests.
>Please keep the list informed.
>
>While FP4 is a great film, the little bit of speed gain of HP5 is
>often needed.
>
>>
>>
>>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 19:30:45 2004