Discussion:
Rumours...
(too old to reply)
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-22 20:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Nest time you hear a rumour.......

For example:

"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."

or

"You can push T-Max 400 13 stops by using this special additive my
friend tried. He said it really works!"

or

'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."

...just take a deep breath and smile as you walk away. Photography is
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just plain
misinformation than anything I know.


The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is....................................................................................

Eastman Kodak.
Ralf R. Radermacher
2003-09-22 20:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Photography is
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just plain
misinformation than anything I know.
Then again, you don't know much of anything.

Anyway, your arrival on this forum has reminded us that photography is
also full of pompous pratters who insist on lecturing us on questions
no-one has asked.

Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Apr. 11, 2003
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-23 01:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralf R. Radermacher
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Photography is
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just plain
misinformation than anything I know.
Then again, you don't know much of anything.
I beg your pardon! So, you want to defend a bunch of old wive's tales?
Post by Ralf R. Radermacher
Anyway, your arrival on this forum has reminded us that photography is
also full of pompous pratters who insist on lecturing us on questions
no-one has asked.
Ralf
So? You need to know, regardlless.
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-23 18:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralf R. Radermacher
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Photography is
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just plain
misinformation than anything I know.
Then again, you don't know much of anything.
Anyway, your arrival on this forum has reminded us that photography is
also full of pompous pratters who insist on lecturing us on questions
no-one has asked.
Ralf
The point of this thread is the gullibility of many photogs. I'm
simply recommending a little scepticism.
Richard Knoppow
2003-09-23 01:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Nest time you hear a rumour.......
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
or
"You can push T-Max 400 13 stops by using this special
additive my
Post by Michael Scarpitti
friend tried. He said it really works!"
or
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better
negatives."
Post by Michael Scarpitti
...just take a deep breath and smile as you walk away.
Photography is
Post by Michael Scarpitti
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just
plain
Post by Michael Scarpitti
misinformation than anything I know.
Try high-end audio:-)
Post by Michael Scarpitti
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is..........................................................
..........................
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Eastman Kodak.
I wonder if this is still true with all the cut-backs
there.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com
Peter Irwin
2003-09-23 02:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Michael Scarpitti
...just take a deep breath and smile as you walk away.
Photography is
Post by Michael Scarpitti
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just
plain
Post by Michael Scarpitti
misinformation than anything I know.
Try high-end audio:-)
If the weirdness in high-end audio is worse, it is because
it has become part of the marketing of audio since the
mid 1970s. The basic underlying problem is the same:
it is very easy to underestimate one's need of controlled
experiments to draw valid conclusions about small effects.
By "small," I do not mean unimportant, but anything which isn't
obvious to everyone. The second part of the problem is that
it isn't really practical for most amateurs to do controlled
experiments.

Peter.
--
***@ktb.net
Jim Phelps
2003-09-23 06:41:38 UTC
Permalink
[SNIP]
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Michael Scarpitti
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is..........................................................
..........................
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Eastman Kodak.
I wonder if this is still true with all the cut-backs
there.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Richard,

Who needs to be able to see when you're making film ;~)

Jim



______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-23 20:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Phelps
[SNIP]
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Michael Scarpitti
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is..........................................................
..........................
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Eastman Kodak.
I wonder if this is still true with all the cut-backs
there.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Richard,
Who needs to be able to see when you're making film ;~)
Jim
That's why they worked at Kodak. Isn't it terribly ironic, though,
that the blind are needed by the seeing?

A lot of work at Kodak used to be carried on in total darkness, but
perhaps more advanced equipment has reduced the demand for their
services.
Ken Hart
2003-09-24 05:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Phelps
[SNIP]
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Michael Scarpitti
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is..........................................................
..........................
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Eastman Kodak.
I wonder if this is still true with all the cut-backs
there.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Richard,
Who needs to be able to see when you're making film ;~)
Jim
Long ago and far away, I vaguely remember touring the (Kodak) area where
film was made. I remember that everyone in the group was asked to leave
their cameras and cigarette lighters (before it was politically incorrect to
carry a _cigarette_ lighter!) at the tour desk. During the course of the
tour, the tour guide said that Kodak does not _specifically_ hire blind
people to work in that area.

If someone wants to correct my recollections, I am ready to stand corrected!

Ken
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-23 18:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Nest time you hear a rumour.......
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
or
"You can push T-Max 400 13 stops by using this special
additive my
Post by Michael Scarpitti
friend tried. He said it really works!"
or
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better
negatives."
Post by Michael Scarpitti
...just take a deep breath and smile as you walk away.
Photography is
Post by Michael Scarpitti
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just
plain
Post by Michael Scarpitti
misinformation than anything I know.
Try high-end audio:-)
There's a bit of dfference there, though, in that there seems to be a
'cheap chic' among many photographers, and those who suffer from this
are some of the worst in regard to gullibility. Quite the reverse of
the high-end mind-set.

"Sure, my $150 28-3000mm f/2 Macro-Cokagon LD APO is as good as the
Nikkor". I have a friend who has one, and he swears by it!"

Among these types, if it's expensive, it's over-priced.
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Michael Scarpitti
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is..........................................................
..........................
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Eastman Kodak.
I wonder if this is still true with all the cut-backs
there.
F.C. Trevor Gale
2003-09-26 22:10:33 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Michael Scarpitti
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is..........................................................
..........................
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Eastman Kodak.
I wonder if this is still true with all the cut-backs
there.
I remember reading some years ago that in one state or another, the
equal-opportunities folks had forced the company to place Braille signs
on doors, including ones that said "Photographic Darkroom". Anyone else
remember that report?

- Trevor Gale.

Patrick Gainer
2003-09-23 03:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Nest time you hear a rumour.......
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
or
"You can push T-Max 400 13 stops by using this special additive my
friend tried. He said it really works!"
or
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
...just take a deep breath and smile as you walk away. Photography is
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just plain
misinformation than anything I know.
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is....................................................................................
Eastman Kodak.
We had a blind darkroom worker at NASA. Damned good one. Maybe Kodak knows you don't need
sight to work in total darkness.

I have seen some of the Old Wives Tales that you are perpetuating, Michael. I agree with
you that there are such, but you don't know all of them.
David Nebenzahl
2003-09-23 07:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Nest time you hear a rumour.......
I never hear "rumours", and neither do you.

Look, bub: in this country, we write "rumors", not "rumours".
"Color", not "colour".
"Economize", not "economise".
"Sensitization", not "sensitisation".
"Realize", not "realise".

Of course you know this.

Only a pompous, pretensions, priggish *twit* would insist on the
stiff-upper-lip "alternate" spellings. (No insult intended here for native
UKoGBaNI English speakers.)
--
It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but
don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman
Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of
the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after
them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has
come out with a dustpan and broom.

- Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_
(http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03
Alexis Neel
2003-09-23 08:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Nest time you hear a rumour.......
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
or
"You can push T-Max 400 13 stops by using this special additive my
friend tried. He said it really works!"
or
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
...just take a deep breath and smile as you walk away. Photography is
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just plain
misinformation than anything I know.
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is....................................................................................
Eastman Kodak.
Trolling again, eh Michael? If you spent half the time doing
photography and darkroom work as you do blabbering about things of
which you are clueless of, you might actually learn something. But I
see you prefer to speak out yer ass about things with which you have
no clue.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-23 14:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexis Neel
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Nest time you hear a rumour.......
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
or
"You can push T-Max 400 13 stops by using this special additive my
friend tried. He said it really works!"
or
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
...just take a deep breath and smile as you walk away. Photography is
full of more urban legends, old wive's tales, and just plain
misinformation than anything I know.
The biggest employer of blind people in the world
is....................................................................................
Eastman Kodak.
Trolling again, eh Michael? If you spent half the time doing
photography and darkroom work as you do blabbering about things of
which you are clueless of, you might actually learn something. But I
see you prefer to speak out yer ass about things with which you have
no clue.
Alexis
www.alexisneel.com
I'm getting the camera out again.
Alexis Neel
2003-09-24 09:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
I'm getting the camera out again.
Save your money and use it as a door stop instead...left alone it
might even take decent pictures without your help.
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-24 14:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexis Neel
Post by Michael Scarpitti
I'm getting the camera out again.
Save your money and use it as a door stop instead...left alone it
might even take decent pictures without your help.
You're funny, you know that?

I hear the Three Stooges need a fourth....
Michael A. Covington
2003-09-23 14:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexis Neel
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Nest time you hear a rumour.......
Trolling again, eh Michael? If you spent half the time doing
Well, he's certainly getting a lot of uninformative replies! Does anybody
here want to talk about photography?
Michael A. Covington
2003-09-23 14:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
Hmmm... If there were actually a reduction in the silver content, we'd
notice it because the capacity of our fixer would increase. In fact you
could even measure it that way. Not to mention the people doing silver
recovery...
Post by Michael Scarpitti
"You can push T-Max 400 13 stops by using this special additive my
friend tried. He said it really works!"
It is certainly possible to get recognizable images that are N stops
underexposed (for any value of N) by photographing a very contrasty scene
and letting the shadows go black. That is of course not a speed increase.

It appears that the speed variation due to changing developers is about plus
or minus half a stop (Rodinal on the low end, Xtol on the high end) and that
preflashing or chemical prefogging can simulate about 1 more stop of speed
increase, with appreciable change in curve shape. Beyond that, you can of
course increase contrast, which raises midtone EI but not shadow speed.
Post by Michael Scarpitti
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
--
Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
John Stafford
2003-09-23 15:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
Hmmm... If there were actually a reduction in the silver content, we'd
notice it because the capacity of our fixer would increase.[...]
I'm not sure that is true, Michael. The T-Grain films are very hard on
fixer and they probably don't have more silver than the rest.
Robert Vervoordt
2003-09-24 00:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Stafford
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
Hmmm... If there were actually a reduction in the silver content, we'd
notice it because the capacity of our fixer would increase.[...]
I'm not sure that is true, Michael. The T-Grain films are very hard on
fixer and they probably don't have more silver than the rest.
Heavy on the Iodides?

Richard?

Robert Vervoordt, MFA
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-24 14:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Vervoordt
Post by John Stafford
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
Hmmm... If there were actually a reduction in the silver content, we'd
notice it because the capacity of our fixer would increase.[...]
I'm not sure that is true, Michael. The T-Grain films are very hard on
fixer and they probably don't have more silver than the rest.
Heavy on the Iodides?
Richard?
Robert Vervoordt, MFA
Fixer exhastion would be no exact measure of film or paper 'silver content'.
Robert Vervoordt
2003-09-24 15:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scarpitti
Post by Robert Vervoordt
Post by John Stafford
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
Hmmm... If there were actually a reduction in the silver content, we'd
notice it because the capacity of our fixer would increase.[...]
I'm not sure that is true, Michael. The T-Grain films are very hard on
fixer and they probably don't have more silver than the rest.
Heavy on the Iodides?
Richard?
Robert Vervoordt, MFA
Fixer exhastion would be no exact measure of film or paper 'silver content'.
I didn't ask you to make an irrelevant response to a query to someone
more knowledgeable, particularly since I used his given name. That
kind of behaviour is rude and unproductive, What did you think was
the question I was asking and what kind of answer would you expect to
be acceptable? Yours was not.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA
Michael A. Covington
2003-09-24 00:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Stafford
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
"Kodak's taken lots of the silver out of Tri-X..."
Hmmm... If there were actually a reduction in the silver content, we'd
notice it because the capacity of our fixer would increase.[...]
I'm not sure that is true, Michael. The T-Grain films are very hard on
fixer and they probably don't have more silver than the rest.
Are they hard on fixer (in the sense of exhausting it quickly) or merely
hard to fix (takes a long time)?
Alexis Neel
2003-09-24 09:23:42 UTC
Permalink
"Michael A. Covington" <***@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote in
Post by Michael A. Covington
Are they hard on fixer (in the sense of exhausting it quickly) or merely
hard to fix (takes a long time)?
Both. The usual test to achieve the time needed to fix film is by
placing a piece of totally fogged, undeveloped film into the fixer and
time how long it takes to clear, then double that time to fix your
film.
With the TMX line of films, we add an additional 25% and increase the
agitation, and prolonged wash time. It still takes forever to get the
magent out of it.
David Nebenzahl
2003-09-23 20:21:27 UTC
Permalink
On 9/23/2003 7:30 AM Michael A. Covington spake thus (replying to M. Scarpitti):

[...]
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
discussion:


Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found. [p.183]


It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
large format and roll film. [p.187]
--
It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but
don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman
Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of
the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after
them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has
come out with a dustpan and broom.

- Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_
(http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03
Mark A
2003-09-23 20:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Nebenzahl
Post by Michael A. Covington
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found.
[p.183]
Post by David Nebenzahl
It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
large format and roll film. [p.187]
In the same book, Adams wrote extensively about why he did not like
developers with high levels of sodium sulfite. So he was fine with sticking
with one developer, so long as it was the one he liked.

Not to mention that with large format negatives (his favorite was 8x10)
grain and sharpness are not as much of a factor, and it is hard to
distinguish one developer from another. Not necessarily so with smaller
formats.
Jon
2003-09-23 21:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:21:27 -0700
Subject: St. Adams sayeth
[...]
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found. [p.183]
It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
large format and roll film. [p.187]
I've only used HC-110 (well, and a bit of D76), and a friend always harasses
me about it--he uses Extol. I'm using HP5+... am I REALLY going to see a
huge difference changing to Extol? I use HC110 single shot, 1:45 in a
Unidrum.

I'll try it if it is dramatically better, but since I'm trying to really
learn HC110, I don't know if I want to deviate and start testing again. I
like the convenience of a liquid, single shot developer.

Jon
Michael A. Covington
2003-09-24 00:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
I've only used HC-110 (well, and a bit of D76), and a friend always harasses
me about it--he uses Extol. I'm using HP5+... am I REALLY going to see a
huge difference changing to Extol? I use HC110 single shot, 1:45 in a
Unidrum.
I'll try it if it is dramatically better, but since I'm trying to really
learn HC110, I don't know if I want to deviate and start testing again. I
like the convenience of a liquid, single shot developer.
I keep using HC-110 because nothing else is *much* better, and there are no
films for which HC-110 is really unsuitable. Also, HC-110 is very reliable.

See:
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol
Jon
2003-09-24 01:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:41:52 -0400
Subject: Re: St. Adams sayeth
Post by Jon
I've only used HC-110 (well, and a bit of D76), and a friend always
harasses
Post by Jon
me about it--he uses Extol. I'm using HP5+... am I REALLY going to see a
huge difference changing to Extol? I use HC110 single shot, 1:45 in a
Unidrum.
I'll try it if it is dramatically better, but since I'm trying to really
learn HC110, I don't know if I want to deviate and start testing again. I
like the convenience of a liquid, single shot developer.
I keep using HC-110 because nothing else is *much* better, and there are no
films for which HC-110 is really unsuitable. Also, HC-110 is very reliable.
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol
Hi Michael,

Where do you think I got the _impetus_ to do single shot with HC-110?

I'm familiar with your website:

"You are visitor number 12852 since 2001 June 5"

I'm about 50 of those hits... It is my reference... :)

Thanks for the great site,

Jon
Jorge Omar
2003-09-24 01:10:56 UTC
Permalink
I don't know what format you use; for 35mm there was a significant
difference (for my eyes, at least) between HC-110 and a Xtol
equivalent.
For LF I don't think it would matter so much.

Jorge
Post by Jon
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:21:27 -0700
Subject: St. Adams sayeth
[...]
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found. [p.183]
It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
large format and roll film. [p.187]
I've only used HC-110 (well, and a bit of D76), and a friend always harasses
me about it--he uses Extol. I'm using HP5+... am I REALLY going to see a
huge difference changing to Extol? I use HC110 single shot, 1:45 in a
Unidrum.
I'll try it if it is dramatically better, but since I'm trying to really
learn HC110, I don't know if I want to deviate and start testing again. I
like the convenience of a liquid, single shot developer.
Jon
Jon
2003-09-24 01:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jorge,

4x5 mainly. A bit of 120, and a little 35mm. So you are saying that for
something that is going to be magnified less, the HC-110 is fine?

How would you describe the difference between the two developers?

Jon
Post by Jorge Omar
I don't know what format you use; for 35mm there was a significant
difference (for my eyes, at least) between HC-110 and a Xtol
equivalent.
For LF I don't think it would matter so much.
Jorge
Post by Jon
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:21:27 -0700
Subject: St. Adams sayeth
[...]
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found. [p.183]
It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
large format and roll film. [p.187]
I've only used HC-110 (well, and a bit of D76), and a friend always harasses
me about it--he uses Extol. I'm using HP5+... am I REALLY going to see a
huge difference changing to Extol? I use HC110 single shot, 1:45 in a
Unidrum.
I'll try it if it is dramatically better, but since I'm trying to really
learn HC110, I don't know if I want to deviate and start testing again. I
like the convenience of a liquid, single shot developer.
Jon
Jorge Omar
2003-09-24 11:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Hi, John

I think the difference between devs is more visible with large
enlargements.
So, it's important for 35mm to use fine grain but without mushy look
devs, and the Xtol like one has gaven me very good results:
Grain, sharpness, slightly compensating (with 125PX).

I use it 1+2.

Just as a compare, I've never liked Microdol-X 1+3.

Jorge
Post by Jon
Hi Jorge,
4x5 mainly. A bit of 120, and a little 35mm. So you are saying that for
something that is going to be magnified less, the HC-110 is fine?
How would you describe the difference between the two developers?
Jon
Post by Jorge Omar
I don't know what format you use; for 35mm there was a significant
difference (for my eyes, at least) between HC-110 and a Xtol
equivalent.
For LF I don't think it would matter so much.
Jorge
Post by Jon
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:21:27 -0700
Subject: St. Adams sayeth
[...]
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found. [p.183]
It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
large format and roll film. [p.187]
I've only used HC-110 (well, and a bit of D76), and a friend always harasses
me about it--he uses Extol. I'm using HP5+... am I REALLY going to see a
huge difference changing to Extol? I use HC110 single shot, 1:45 in a
Unidrum.
I'll try it if it is dramatically better, but since I'm trying to really
learn HC110, I don't know if I want to deviate and start testing again. I
like the convenience of a liquid, single shot developer.
Jon
Michael A. Covington
2003-09-24 13:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge Omar
I don't know what format you use; for 35mm there was a significant
difference (for my eyes, at least) between HC-110 and a Xtol
equivalent.
For LF I don't think it would matter so much.
Jorge
I didn't say there was no difference; it is certainly perceptible. But I
can get excellent pictures with HC-110, which is much easier to use and more
reliable than Xtol. So I still mostly use HC-110.
Jorge Omar
2003-09-24 18:04:20 UTC
Permalink
If photographer's would agree on developers, there would be only one for sale...
((-:

Jorge
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Jorge Omar
I don't know what format you use; for 35mm there was a significant
difference (for my eyes, at least) between HC-110 and a Xtol
equivalent.
For LF I don't think it would matter so much.
Jorge
I didn't say there was no difference; it is certainly perceptible. But I
can get excellent pictures with HC-110, which is much easier to use and more
reliable than Xtol. So I still mostly use HC-110.
John
2003-09-25 03:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge Omar
If photographer's would agree on developers, there would be only one for sale...
D-76H !

Regards

John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
Jon
2003-09-25 01:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:41:36 -0400
Subject: Re: St. Adams sayeth
Post by Jorge Omar
I don't know what format you use; for 35mm there was a significant
difference (for my eyes, at least) between HC-110 and a Xtol
equivalent.
For LF I don't think it would matter so much.
Jorge
I didn't say there was no difference; it is certainly perceptible. But I
can get excellent pictures with HC-110, which is much easier to use and more
reliable than Xtol. So I still mostly use HC-110.
Hi Michael and Jorge,

Excuse me if I missed it, but what is the difference between negatives
developed with HC-110 and Xtol? I've read Kodak's description, but that is a
bit formal.

thanks,

Jon
John
2003-09-25 03:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
Excuse me if I missed it, but what is the difference between negatives
developed with HC-110 and Xtol? I've read Kodak's description, but that is a
bit formal.
The differences are significant. HC110 develops less film speed (- 0.7 on
average), much coarser grain and correspondingly less sharpness.

Regards

John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
Jorge Omar
2003-09-25 14:24:30 UTC
Permalink
I found HC-110 dil B and B/2 grainier and less 'sharp' than Xtol in
10x enlrgements (my standard enlargement is 24x30 cm).
Besides, 125PX @200 in Xtol 1+2 present some shouldering, and helps to
avoid blown higlihts in fast (street style) shooting.

Jorge
Post by Jon
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:41:36 -0400
Subject: Re: St. Adams sayeth
Post by Jorge Omar
I don't know what format you use; for 35mm there was a significant
difference (for my eyes, at least) between HC-110 and a Xtol
equivalent.
For LF I don't think it would matter so much.
Jorge
I didn't say there was no difference; it is certainly perceptible. But I
can get excellent pictures with HC-110, which is much easier to use and more
reliable than Xtol. So I still mostly use HC-110.
Hi Michael and Jorge,
Excuse me if I missed it, but what is the difference between negatives
developed with HC-110 and Xtol? I've read Kodak's description, but that is a
bit formal.
thanks,
Jon
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-24 02:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:21:27 -0700
Subject: St. Adams sayeth
[...]
Post by Michael A. Covington
Post by Michael Scarpitti
'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
words to that effect?
A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found. [p.183]
It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
large format and roll film. [p.187]
I've only used HC-110 (well, and a bit of D76), and a friend always harasses
me about it--he uses Extol. I'm using HP5+... am I REALLY going to see a
huge difference changing to Extol? I use HC110 single shot, 1:45 in a
Unidrum.
What format film?
Post by Jon
I'll try it if it is dramatically better, but since I'm trying to really
learn HC110, I don't know if I want to deviate and start testing again. I
like the convenience of a liquid, single shot developer.
Jon
Frank Pittel
2003-09-23 22:00:02 UTC
Permalink
David Nebenzahl <***@but.us.chickens> wrote:
: On 9/23/2003 7:30 AM Michael A. Covington spake thus (replying to M. Scarpitti):

: [...]

: >> 'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
: >
: > Actually, Adams was not much into unusual developers... didn't he say,
: > regarding developers, "There are many ways to achieve the same results" or
: > words to that effect?

: A couple of excerpts from _The Negative_ (1981) relevant, I think, to the
: discussion:


: Manufacturers usually recommend certain developers for their products
: with the intention of balancing various factors, including emulsion
: characteristics, efficient processing time, reasonably fine grain, and
: the characteristics of standard printing papers. The photographer should
: attempt to establish a norm with one of the standard developers, such as
: HC-110 and then deviate only when a real improvement is found. [p.183]

I agree 100% with the idea of using sticking to one developer as much as possible.
I would also apply this to film and paper. With repeated use comes an understanding
of the strengthes and weaknesses of different films and developers.

: It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer
: choice, since the effects of variation are perhaps not as vital sa many
: suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110
: proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in
: large format and roll film. [p.187]
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
***@deepthought.com
Michael Scarpitti
2003-09-24 02:31:54 UTC
Permalink
I used just a few films and papers in the late 60's and early 70's,
thouigh I was always experimenting with others.

Tri-X
FP3
UFG Developer
Dupont paper

Those were my workhorses.

Later, I started using Paterson Acutol with FP4 reguarly after
experimenting with many acutance type developers, including Neofin
Blau and Rot, X-22, Ethol TEC, etc., and Adox films.

KB14 and Paterson Acuspecial were a very good combo, but the speed
differential between KB14 and FP4 was so great for the little
difference in quality that I gave them up.
Post by Frank Pittel
: >> 'Ansel Adams used to spit in his developer, to get better negatives."
Can you name the photographer who did use spittle as part of his
technique?

Hint: It wasn't Adams.
Loading...