Extreme compensating developer for TMY

[Ron Marshall]

I will be starting a project soon using T-Max 400, where I will have to compress a 13 stop range. I am thinking of using semi-stand with either divided HC-110 or one of the Pyro formulas.

I have never tried pyro, but from the posts I have read, Pyrocat-HC or Hypercat or 510 or Dixactol sound promising.

Would such a compression be possible with any of these using rotary processing, or would semi-stand be required?

Which developer and technique do you recommend for such a contrast range?

[Ole Tjugen]

13 stops isn't that much!

It's well within the capabilities of most developers. Try D-23 perhaps, with a borax afterbath for a little boost in the shadows. Normal agitation, whatever that is. I used that once and got a good printable negative from FP4+, with a 17 stop range.

[steve simmons]

The problem with D23, or any other developer with a high content of sodium sulfite, is that they do not produce the sharpest image and tend to mush the high values. I would suggest one of the more stable staining developers such as PMK or W2D2+ (The S10 formula may work as well, I just have not tried it). Gordon Hutchings used D23 for years before switching to a pyrogallol/metol based formula. If you use rotary processing then I would suggest the Rollo Pyro formula which is specifically formulated for rotary processing.

I am a great believer in tray processing. It has worked for me for 25+ years. The PMK and W2D2 do well in trays.

I would also suggest considering Tri-X. When I tested film many years ago, including TMY, Tri-X did a better job of holding on to its local contrast when subjected to severly shortened dev time to control a long contrast range.

steve simmons

[sanking]

I will be starting a project soon using T-Max 400, where I will have to compress a 13 stop range. I am thinking of using semi-stand with either divided HC-110 or one of the Pyro formulas.

I have never tried pyro, but from the posts I have read, Pyrocat-HC or Hypercat or 510 or Dixactol sound promising.

Would such a compression be possible with any of these using rotary processing, or would semi-stand be required?

Which developer and technique do you recommend for such a contrast range?


I will be starting a project soon using T-Max 400, where I will have to compress a 13 stop range. I am thinking of using semi-stand with either divided HC-110 or one of the Pyro formulas.

In my opinion the best method of achieving what you want is with some form of minimal agitation procedure. The master of minimal agitation procedures, IMO, is Steve Sherman, who has published two articles in View Camera magazine on the subject in the last couple of years. Steve also does workshops on the subject, and most importantly, has shown his work in a variety of locales and has the goods to back up his opinions.

Steve has been using Pyrocat-HD in his work with minimal agitation procedures for seveal years. In a recent thread on another forum he recently wrote:

"Pyrocat HD has proven to be the best developer for Semi-Stand and Minimal Agitation methods of developing film.

Once the agitation bugs were worked out I have consistently produced negatives with increased adjancecy effects and been able to control the micro contrast within a negative which was never before possible without the aid of digital manipulation."

There has been quite a bit of discussion of Sherman's reduced agitatin methods on the AZO forum and on APUG. In fact, I was going to send you the address of a recent thread on APUG which Sherman recommended as a good overview of the procedure but unfortunatley I can not get on to APUG at this time to retrive the address. I will send it later, or perhaps someone else can forward it to here.

In addition to Pyrocat-HD I would also recommend dilute solutions of Rodinal and HC-110 becaue they too have a proven record of succees with reducer agitation proceduress.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

I did a lot of testing in the mid 80s and again in the 90s for this type of situation. Here are some of my findings.

1. Although I like FP4+ I did not feel it was a good film for minus development. It's local contrast dies quickly and compared to films like Tri-X and the T-Max films It looks just flat overall.

2. Tri-X did the best job of holding its local contrast with severly shortened development My normal time was 11 minutes but I developeed, in trays, for just over 4 minutes and everything looked fine.

3. I tried a variety of developers including PMK, a pyrocatechol formula that had been around for years, and diluted HC110. The two staining developers gave me much better results than the HC110. I decided agaisnt the pyrocatechol formula because I did not think it was as good an all purpose developer as the PMK, both handled the minus dev about the same, and becasue the pyrocatechol is not as stable a chemical as the pyrogallol.


steve simmons

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks Steve for the recommendations. I hope you are recovering quickly.

The main reason I chose TMY is reciprocity. I will be shooting at night and need fairly short exposures.

[sanking]

There has been quite a bit of discussion of Sherman's reduced agitatin methods on the AZO forum and on APUG. In fact, I was going to send you the address of a recent thread on APUG which Sherman recommended as a good overview of the procedure but unfortunatley I can not get on to APUG at this time to retrive the address. I will send it later, or perhaps someone else can forward it to here.

Sandy

This is the thread I mentioned above.

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24023

Developing negatives of subjects with great lighting contrast is a fairly complicated issue and speical procedures are obviously needed. The use of special formulas such as the Windisch compensating develper has been recommended, as has very short develoment times. However, the best work I have seen of this type has relied on one of two procedures: 1) divided development, in which the first solution contains the developing agent (s) and preservative and the second contains the Alkali, or 2) minimal agitation in which the film is devloped in a very dilute. Unfortunately many modern films do not respond well to divided development, while most if not all respond well to minimal agitation with dilute developers.

IMO both expansion and contraction development work much better by changing the dilution of the developer than by changing devleopment time, though the latter method is usually more convenient.

Sandy

[sanking]

I am attaching a .jpeg file of a negative that I made in a situation where a very large amount of contraction was necessary. This shot was made in Montana at Banack ghost town from the inside of the barber shop/saloon. The difference in EV reading in the interior was about 3, outside it was 16 or 17.

In making the negative exposure, about 10 minutes at f/64 (with reciprocity) with Tri-X320, was based on the shadow values on the interior, and develoment was with a 1.5:1:200 diluton of Pyrocat-HD with semi-stand (extreme minimal agitation) for about 15 minutes.

The look is very much what I was after. Good, deep shdows, but holding detai everywhere, and a sense of light streaming in from the windows, but with some texture in the highlight. I could have flattened the highlights even more but I chose to leave them a bit light to show the mood of the scene. The original negative is 12X20, though the small .jpeg will now allow you to appreciate much of the detail in the same size print. Others methods of development or devleopers might have proven effective, but it would be fairly difficult in my opinion to improve much on this particular treatment as seen in this 12?X20 carbon print.

Sandy King

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks Sandy for the link and the example image. That is about the range I will have to deal with, and your technique certainly yeilds very pleasing tonality.

[steve simmons]

This is exactly the kind of situation I've dealt with many times using Tri-X, PMK and very short dev times in trays - about 4.5 minutes.

There is a tendency, sometimes, to make things more complicated than they need to be. I prefer simple but good solutions to problems rather than being more complicated for little, if any, improvement.

Ultimately, people should make thier own decisions. I am just sharing what has worked for me many times over the last 20+ years.

steve simmons

[Ron Marshall]

Steve, what dilution of PMK would you recomend to deal with such a contrast range?

[J D Clark]

I will be starting a project soon using T-Max 400, where I will have to compress a 13 stop range. I am thinking of using semi-stand with either divided HC-110 or one of the Pyro formulas.

I have never tried pyro, but from the posts I have read, Pyrocat-HC or Hypercat or 510 or Dixactol sound promising.

Would such a compression be possible with any of these using rotary processing, or would semi-stand be required?

Which developer and technique do you recommend for such a contrast range?


I've had a good level of success with compensating development of both Tri-X and T-Max 100 using HC-110 in trays. I'm certain that you could only get the level of compensation with a form of standing development, or in a more extreme case, perhaps water bath development.

My specific procedure uses HC-110 with dilution 1 : 127, negatives are placed face up in a slosher tray. The development proceeds generally for 20 minutes at 68F with agitation for the first minute, and then for only 5 seconds every two minutes.

Another scheme that I've used is agitation for the first minute, and then for 15 seconds every 4 minutes thereafter. The technique has a lot of variables, though, so what you choose should probably be based on a little testing.

John Clark

[Glenn Thoreson]

Wow, Sandy, your photo looks much better than the one I did in same the saloon. Of course, I was using a busted Argus C-3 and T-max 100 without a light meter. It still came out. That's been a long time ago. I hope to go back some day and do it right. Bannack is a great place to photgraph. PMK is great to develop those photos, too.

[Jay DeFehr]

I will be starting a project soon using T-Max 400, where I will have to compress a 13 stop range. I am thinking of using semi-stand with either divided HC-110 or one of the Pyro formulas.

I have never tried pyro, but from the posts I have read, Pyrocat-HC or Hypercat or 510 or Dixactol sound promising.

Would such a compression be possible with any of these using rotary processing, or would semi-stand be required?

Which developer and technique do you recommend for such a contrast range?

Hi Ron.

TMY is my favorite film, and I use a lot of it. For semi-stand development I would use 510-Pyro 1:300 - 1:500, and develop for 30-45min/70F. For rotary-contraction development I would take a different approach and use Hypercat 1:3:100. In this way, contrast is controlled by the reduced carbonate concentration, while retaining a sufficient concentration of developing agent to avoid exhaustion and/or increased fog and general stain with normal development time. Hypercat produces very sharp negatives, even with rotary development. Hypercat could also be used for semi-stand development, with a 1:10:300-500 dilution, but be prepared for increased local contrast and edge effects. If it's too much, increase agitation frequency to taste. Good luck.

Jay

[steve simmons]

I use the standard PMK dilution of 1:2:100 for everything from minus 4 to plus whatever the film will do. Tri-X handles the minus treatment better than any film I've tried and that includes the T-Max films. Tri-X just holds on to its local contrast better than the others, some of which go flat when treated this way. By using the same dilution for all of my negs I can do minus, normal, and plus negs all in the same batch. There is no need to make things more complicated or do anything specal one way or the other.

I use 12cc of A, 24 of B and 1200 of water in an 8x10 tray for 4x5 and 5x7 film.

My tray processing procedure is described in an article in the Free Articles section of the View Camera web site.

steve simmons

[sanking]

.

There is a tendency, sometimes, to make things more complicated than they need to be. I prefer simple but good solutions to problems rather than being more complicated for little, if any, improvement.

Ultimately, people should make thier own decisions. I am just sharing what has worked for me many times over the last 20+ years.

steve simmons


But the point is, many of us don't find the use of reduced agitation in combination with very dilute solutions any more complicated then regular processing, and the improvement in quality appears to be very great in some situations. In fact, I find reduced agitation methods much simpler. The total time of development is longer, but that is compensated by the fact that one spends less time handling the film, and much of the work can be done with the lights on (assuming develoment is in tubes or drums).

I used PMK as my primary developer for almost ten years and during that time my typical procedure was to adjust time of development to correspond to N conditions, shortening time of development for N- scnes and increasing time of development for N+ scenes, keeping dilution the same, so I am very aware of what can and can not be achieved with this method of contraction.

There really is no comparison in my own work in dealing with high contrast scenes between the quality of the results I have been able to get with reduced agitaition procedures in combination with very dilute developing solutions as opposed to using a standard dilution and just reuducing develoment time. The former technique gives full emulsion speed with excellent separation from the shadows to the higlights. When using reduced time of development I have always found that there was some loss of separation (= local contrast) in either the shadows, mid-tones or highlights, though some films because of the shape of their curve may favor local areas.

Opinions about quality can be quite subjective, and that is why people make different choices. And if someone is perfectly satisfied with the results he/she gets in scenes of very great contrast by simply reducing time of develoment, then that person apperas to have made the best choice for himself/herself.

As for simple versus complicated, I prefer simple when it gives equal or same results. But if complicated gives better resutls, I embrace it joyfully. Why settle for less, if a small adjustment in procedure gives more?

Sandy King

[sanking]

Thanks Sandy for the link and the example image. That is about the range I will have to deal with, and your technique certainly yeilds very pleasing tonality.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comments. I photograph in this type of lighting condition a lot. I really like playing around visually with thes type of extreme lighting conditions where you expose indoor/outdoor of the type you saw in the Bannack shot.

Here is another one, made on trip to Mexico last year. The camera was a Nagaoka, the lens a 125 mm Fujinon SWD, and film was Tmax-400 film. Difference between indoor and outdoor EV was more than 16 stops. The scenes is the interior of an examination room at the Law School of the Universidad Benito Juárez in Oaxaca. The view through the window across the street looks on part of the Cathedral of Oaxaca (in full sun from the side).

Just after I exposed the negative a young Mexican woman entered the room, accompanied by her professors, for her final law exams at the university. She said hello and I wished her good luck, so there may be some sentimental attachment on my part to the image, but I still like it for its simplicity and play of light, not only the control of light outside, but also in reflections, from the waxed wooden floor and also off the wall near the window. Also, I like the way our eyes enter the room visually from a very dark spot, to emerge in a scene of great luminosity.

The negative was developed with the reduced agitation/dilute developer (Pyrocat-HD 1:1:150, 20 minutes) procedures described earlier in this thread. The print is a 5X7 carbon print, and the image file is a direct scan of the carbon print.

My favorite film for this type of subject is Tmax-400, because of its very straight linear curve, and low reciprocity failure.

Sandy

[John Bowen]

Sandy,

Where is the attachment?

John

[sanking]

Sandy,

Where is the attachment?

John

John,

Sorry, the file did not upload th first time. I believe it is on the site now.

Thanks for alerting me to the problem.

Sandy

[sanking]

Here is another one. Data similar to the image of the Benito Juárez University law office file.

Lots more images of this type I could post, but want everyone to know that the previous ones are not just happen accidents, and that my comments in this thread are not based on theory and/or old testing, but on real subjets with real film and real cameras and real lighting conditions and real results.


Sandy

[Don Bryant]

Just thought I would post an example of semi-stand development using 4x5 HP5+ and PyroCat-HD 1:1:200 for about 25 minutes in a Unicolor drum. The shot is the interior of an abandonded cotton gin. The exposure was about 90 sec based on the shadow readings. Agitiation was 30 seconds at the begining of the development cycle and at the half way point. The highlights in the mid section are very bright but not wuite blown out.

[sanking]

Just thought I would post an example of semi-stand development using 4x5 HP5+ and PyroCat-HD 1:1:200 for about 25 minutes in a Unicolor drum. The shot is the interior of an abandonded cotton gin. The exposure was about 90 sec based on the shadow readings. Agitiation was 30 seconds at the begining of the development cycle and at the half way point. The highlights in the mid section are very bright but not wuite blown out.

Don,


What was the process? Silver or alternative?

Very interesting subject. If it is still available, and local to the Atlanta area, would be interested in driving down there and photographing the interior with you some time. Maybe bring Sam Wang along?

Sandy

[steve simmons]

"...comments in this thread are not based on theory and/or old testing, but on real subjets with real film and real cameras and real lighting conditions and real results."


As was my comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD in which I liked the results from PMK much better. I have been criticized for my testing methods but the picture is the real test. Comparing lab results is not an indicator of what a film and developer will do in real life.


We need to be careful about looking at images posted on a web site. The backlighting of the computer monitor gives an artificial feeling of luminance to all photos that are displayed this way. A print is viewed by reflected light not transmitted light. To post an image this way as proof that a technique works, or is better than another technique can be very misleading.


steve simmons

[sanking]

"...comments in this thread are not based on theory and/or old testing, but on real subjets with real film and real cameras and real lighting conditions and real results."


As was my comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD in which I liked the results from PMK much better. I have been criticized for my testing methods but the picture is the real test. Comparing lab results is not an indicator of what a film and developer will do in real life.





If what you want is a comparison in real life time, I am more than pleased to accomodate you.

OK, how about this. You send 20 mounted photographs to the next APUG conference, image size 12X20 or smaller and on 20X24" mounting board or less, and I do the same. Subject lighting conditions will be limited to direct backlighting up to an angle of ninety degees and with contraction development of -10 or more. You use your deveoper, dillution and type of agitaton of choice, and I do the same.

APUG administrators will select judges to evalutate the prints, with no interference from you or me.


Sandy

[sanking]

And BTW, we each do all the work, and document it. That would include all exposuce calculations, setting up the camera, making the exposures, development, and all printing calculations.

Don't want the results distorted by the interference of others, right?

Best,

Sandy King

[Wayne Crider]

Sandy you pictures have motivated me to do more stand/semi stand processing. Can I ask tho what zone you expose your detailed shadows in. An article I read in a special edition Darkroom Techniques had the author exposing them up to zone 4, 4.5 and even 5 IIRC in extremely contrasty situations.

[steve simmons]

You have been invited several times to come to the View Camera conferences and as you know there would be a lot of PMK prints. You have declined every time. You have been invited to write for View Camera about a variety of topics. You have not responded to thse invitations. My goal in doing this upcoming article on staining develpers, which you now seem willing to participate in, is to bring a lot of the myth and gossip about staining developers out into the light so that people can better undestand how they work. I am glad that you will now participate and will now join a larger and more public conversation.

As a possible continuation of this public conversation may I suggst that you send 20 prints to View Camera. You can suggest two of the judges. I will select two and the fifth will be someone who does not use a staining developer so they won't have a bias any way or the other. After the judgiung you can select five of your prints for publication in View Camera and you will have the opportunity to write a statement giving all the tech info on each photo and why you processed the film the way you did. I will do the same. I wlll ask the judges to write their comments about all of the prints and these commentswill appear along with your five samples and my five samples. This will be a completly open and public forum for everyone to see and be aware of. By doing such an open forum everyone will be able to learn a lot. I certainly will and I hope you will also. The large format community will benefit greatly from this article and it will generate a lot of conversations about technique which will be good for the lf community

View Camera
Box 2328
Corrales, NM 87048

I look forward to this second article and shedding even more public light on this topic.


steve simmons

[sanking]

"...comments in this thread are not based on theory and/or old testing, but on real subjets with real film and real cameras and real lighting conditions and real results."


As was my comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD in which I liked the results from PMK much better. I have been criticized for my testing methods but the picture is the real test. Comparing lab results is not an indicator of what a film and developer will do in real life.


steve simmons



As was my comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD in which I liked the results from PMK much better. I have been criticized for my testing methods but the picture is the real test. Comparing lab results is not an indicator of what a film and developer will do in real life.


We need to be careful about looking at images posted on a web site. The backlighting of the computer monitor gives an artificial feeling of luminance to all photos that are displayed this way. A print is viewed by reflected light not transmitted light. To post an image this way as proof that a technique works, or is better than another technique can be very misleading.


steve simmons[/QUOTE]


If what you want is a comparison in real life time, I am more than pleased to accomodate you.

OK, how about this. You send 20 mounted photograhs to the next APUG conference, image size 12X20 or smaller and on 20X24" mounting board or less, and I do the same. Subject lighting conditoins will be limited to direct backlighting up to an angle of ninety degees and with contraction development of -10 or more.

APUG administrators will select judges to evalutate the judges, with no interference from you or me.

The issue is not a comparison of PMK and Pyrocat-Hd. The issue is that your original test of PMK verus Pyrocat-HD tests was flawed, and to this day you apparently don't have a clue as to why this is so, even though many people with good knowledge of sensitometry have tried to explain the issues to you.

OK, you don't understand the issues, and frankly I am fresh out of trying to explain them to you, other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI.

You can complain, cry, scream or whine about the remarks I have made about your tests, but if you look on the net almost everyone who has expressed an opinoin about this agrees with my position.

Get over it. You made a mistake. Try to move on.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

I have made you an offer Sandy for a further public forum. I am hoping that you will accept it.

I developed the PMk and pyrocat negs to the same zone 8 density and exposed them for the same zone 1 density. I then went out to the real world and made comparison shots of the same subject matter.

My offer stands.

steve simmons

[sanking]

I have made you an offer Sandy for a further public forum. I am hoping that you will accept it.

I developed the PMk and pyrocat negs to the same zone 8 density and exposed them for the same zone 1 density. I then went out to the real world and made comparison shots of the same subject matter.

My offer stands.

steve simmons


Perhaps you did not read my previous message. My offer for a presentation at APUG still stands. I hope you have enough confidence in your technique to step up to the plate with *real* prints.

But regardless, your original test of PMK versus Pyrocat-HD was flawed, and almost everyone who has expressed an opinion about the tests agrees with my point of view. Would you like go back thorugh through the archives to determine who agrees with you and who agrees with me? It is pathetic to the extreme that you still stand by your test, but I an personally not surprised.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

I did read your post. I just think that the public forum I am offering will be more open and reach a much larger audience and provide much more information to those interested. If you want we can add a second section on film testing procedures and show the advantages and disadvantages of those that seem to be in popular use. This article could be very informative to the entire community.

If you develop negs in different staining developers to the same CI they will not print the same because of the stain. This is basic to the staining developer. The color of he stain is different between the two developers which will affect the print values. If you do not understand this you do not understand staining develpers. I did my testing to get a zone 8 density to just barely darker than pure paper white both the PMK and Pyrocat

Will you accept my offer.?

steve simmons

[sanking]

I look forward to this second article and shedding even more public light on this topic.


steve simmons

You had every opportunity to publish a sound article on pyro developers, and I would have loved to be involved in the work. In fact, I had many communciations with you from about two years ago, on your LF forum, in which I offered my support in doing so.

You never offered any positive forum for doing so.

But, fortunately for me and my collaborators, in this day and time people of talent and knowledge do not depend on publishers to present their views.

So give us a reason for presentiing our work througth View Camera?

Thanks,


Sandy

[sanking]

I have made you an offer Sandy for a further public forum. I am hoping that you will accept it.

I developed the PMk and pyrocat negs to the same zone 8 density and exposed them for the same zone 1 density. I then went out to the real world and made comparison shots of the same subject matter.

My offer stands.

steve simmons


Perhaps you did not read my previous message. My offer for a presentation at APUG still stands. I hope you have enough confidence in your technique to step up to the plate with *real* prints.

But regardless, your original test of PMK versus Pyrocat-HD was flawed, and almost everyone who has expressed an opinion about the tests agrees with my point of view. Would you like go back thorugh through the archives to determine who agrees with you and who agrees with me? It is sad that that you still stand by those flawed testa, but I am not surprised.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

"So give us a reason for presentiing our work througth View Camera? " (sic)


It would be an open public forum that could educate a lot of people.


"...other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI."


You seem confused about staining developers. You criticize me for not developing my PMK and Pyrocat negs to the same CI. If you do they will not print the same becasue of the different color of the stain between the two developers. With staining developers the strictness of the CI test loses its validity. This is fundmental to understaning how to use a staining developer. I understand this which is why I test the way I do. If you test for matching CI you will not get comparable results.

steve simmons

[Don Bryant]

Don,


What was the process? Silver or alternative?

Very interesting subject. If it is still available, and local to the Atlanta area, would be interested in driving down there and photographing the interior with you some time. Maybe bring Sam Wang along?

Sandy
Hi Sandy,

The image show here is a scan from the negative, adjusted in PS in preparation for creating a digital negative. I'll probably make a gum over palladium print if I can get the digi neg to work. Unfortuantely when I converted the image to JPG for web viewing the image gained a lot of contrast and looses a lot of the midtone luminace and shadow detail. Though the scene is very high contrast the negative itself is slightly flat. I usually prefer a neg. that requires a bit of contrast boost when it comes time to make a print rather than having one too contrasty. I don't have my processing dialed in as precisely as you do.

The location of this gin is in Senoia, GA, which is way south of Atlanta. I could probably drive to Greensboro in less time than it takes to drive there. The photograph was made late last winter and the gin was slated to be demolished, so I don't know if it is still standing. I can find out perhaps by calling the Senoia city hall. Senoia is a dinky town, but with an interesting collection of older homes in town.

According to one of the locals I met the last time I was there supposedly the EPA had condemended the property as a hazardous waste dump because of the leakage of agriculture chemicals stored in the biulding.

Photographing the interior of the gin involves what I call B&E photography. The street side entrances are marked No Tresspassing and blocked with yellow tape but the backside of the building is accessible. The interior is pretty small and in very rough shape but has a lot of interesting stuff to photograph. It was so dark inside I had to use a high powered flash light to focus and compose with.

I'll e-mail you when I find out the status of the gin. This location was originally discovered by Doug Fisher who has a knack for finding these kinds of places.

Don

[sanking]

"So give us a reason for presentiing our work througth View Camera? " (sic)


It would be an open public forum that could educate a lot of people.

You seem confused about staining developers. You criticize me for not developing my PMK and Pyrocat negs to the same CI. If you do they will not print the same becasue of the different color of the stain between the two developers. With staining developers the strictness of the CI test loses its validity. This is fundmental to understaning how to use a staining developer. I understand this which is why I test the way I do. If you test for matching CI you will not get comparable results.

steve simmons

Steve, believe me on this, I am not confused.

Give me a call tomorrow after about 1 pm EST if you would like to talk about this. 804-269-904 (home), or 804-979-2153 (cell). Hope to do a very long bicycle ride with my wife in the AM (EST) so please wait until after about 1 pm ESt if you call.

Would like to bridge the differnce.

Sandy

[Bob Gentile]

As a "disinterested" but "very interested" observer, how about if you each accept the other's challenge!

That way, we who would like to learn could read what the APUG judges have to say and we could see pics of the resulting images in VC magazine. Personally, I could care less who agrees with whom in the archives. I'd like to SEE the differences.

[steve simmons]

"...other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI

"Steve, believe me on this, I am not confused. "

I disagree. To make a statement like the first one quoted here shows me that you are completly confused about the nature and character of staining developers.


No, I am not going to send my prints into a black private hole and have them disappear with unknown judges. That is why I offered a completly open and public forum. Sandy claims he wanted me to do articles on pyro and staining developers a couple of years ago. We are building such a series . It remains to be seen whether or not he will participate.

There need be no private conversations Sandy. Lets keep everything out in the open.

steve

[sanking]

As a "disinterested" but "very interested" observer, how about if you each accept the other's challenge!

That way, we who would like to learn could read what the APUG judges have to say and we could see pics of the resulting images in VC magazine. Personally, I could care less who agrees with whom in the archives. I'd like to SEE the differences.

Well, from my previous post Steve knows how to contact me directlly, either by phone or by email.

Best,

Sandy

[sanking]

"...other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI

"Steve, believe me on this, I am not confused. "


There need be no private conversations Sandy. Lets keep everything out in the open.

steve

Steve. What you say is very confuisng. You say that "there needs to be a private converesaion", (sic) and then you say "let's keep- everythingt out in the open."

Am I just stupid or can I just can not read, or what? Let me repeat, You say that "there needs to be a private converesaion (sic) ", and then you say "let's keep- everythingt out in the open?" Very confusing. I just don't understand!

As I said, my numbers are 864-269-9040(home), or 869-079-2153 (cell). If you are interested in bridging our differences, give e a call tomorrow after about 1 pm EST.

Thanks,

Sandy

[sanking]

"...other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI

"Steve, believe me on this, I am not confused. "

I disagree. To make a statement like the first one quoted here shows me that you are completly confused about the nature and character of staining developers.


No, I am not going to send my prints into a black private hole and have them disappear with unknown judges. That is why I offered a completly open and public forum. Sandy claims he wanted me to do articles on pyro and staining developers a couple of years ago. We are building such a series . It remains to be seen whether or not he will participate.

There need be no private conversations Sandy. Lets keep everything out in the open.

steve


=steve simmons][I Sandy claims he wanted me to do articles on pyro and staining developers a couple of years ago. We are building such a series . It remains to be seen whether or not he will participate.

There need be no private conversations Sandy. Lets keep everything out in the open.

steve[/QUOTE]

Steve,


You had your chance to make this happen, but did nothing.

Now it will happen without you.

When it happens you will know. But since you are not in the loop on this project, don't expect weekly updates.

Sandy

[sanking]

[QUOTE=steve simmons
You seem confused about staining developers. You criticize me for not developing my PMK and Pyrocat negs to the same CI. If you do they will not print the same becasue of the different color of the stain between the two developers. With staining developers the strictness of the CI test loses its validity. This is fundmental to understaning how to use a staining developer. I understand this which is why I test the way I do. If you test for matching CI you will not get comparable results.

steve simmons[/QUOTE]


What you say about CI is simply incorrect whe printing with graded papers. I am astonished that someone who would like to pass himself off as an expert on staining developers has such a flawed concept of how staining developers work with graded papers. However, at least I can now understand why you believe your tests were valid.

OK, Pyro 101. Graded papers see stain density as additional neutral density and there is no highlight compensation or compression with these papers when printed with stained negatives. If you do step wedge tests and develop the step wedge negatives to the same effective printing contrast in two different staining developers you will be able to make prints from these negatives on graded papers that are identical in terms of the rendition of tonal values from the shadows to the highlights. Howard Bond understood this, and clealry illustrated the point in his article in DT. And anyone else who bothers to make the test can quickly prove the point for himself/herself. Now understand, you can not just take densitometer readings and plot CI because the color of the stain varies somewhat in how miuch printing light is blocked.

But please, just get a Stouffer step wedge and make the tests yourself. Use any staining developers you want. Develop step wedge negatives of each negative to produce a range of contrast, which you do by making test prints on graded papers. If you do this you will eventually find a development time for each developer that will make a step wedge print on the same graded silver paper with the same tonal values, from the shadows to the highlights. You can also match the contrast for other processes, say Pt./Pd.

VC papers will of course react differently since these papers are sensitive to both blue and green light, and in this case the color of the stain will indeed play a role in determining how the highlights print.

Sandy

[Michael Kadillak]

You are correct about the Bond article and as you said Sandy, Howard did an admiral job of at least addressing the variables correctly.

From my perspective I am only interested in factual material I can use to make fine prints. In order to be able to add dimension to this subject, a base knowledge of the facts are obviously necessary to get to the proper working conclusion that we as photographers can use in our work.

I know that you will engage the correct knowledge base/expertise to conduct this analysis once and for all and do a bang up job in the process as your academic life has trained you to do. And as you said, there are a myriad of venues to bring these results to the receptive audience and I and many others look forward to them.

Cheers!

[sanking]

You are correct about the Bond article and as you said Sandy, Howard did an admiral job of at least addressing the variables correctly.

Cheers!


I imagine that a number of people are confused about who is right on this issue. The fact of the matter is that both Steve and I can not be right -- one of use is right and the other is wrong, there is no gray area on this particular here. But instead of further arguing about the issue with Steve I am going to describe a fairly simply testing procedure that folks can use to test for themselves and reach an informed judgment. I will put this up in a new thread sometime later this afternoon. Let the folks decide, as the Fox commentator remarks.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy

You continue to miss important points. The color of the stain has an effect on the amount of light from the light source. The color of the stain acts as a neutral density but if the color of the stain has the effect of blocking more of the light from the light source, remember, the stain is proportional to the silver denisty so more density = more stain, and if the color of the stain of one developer holds back more of the light from the light soruce than does the color of the stain from a different developer, then one neg may print with more or less contrast. A strict CI approach will overlook this factor.

This issue has confused strict sensitometrists for years who can not get away from the densitometer is holy approach. This is what makes staining developers special but confounding to some.

Sandy, you can devise whatever test you want to try and get around what you said but it is now public. You simply do not understand how a staining developer really works. I am glad we've had this conversation as know I understand why we've had trouble communicating. Your statement that I did a bad test becasue I did not match CI shows the falacy in your thinking. To match CI could easily result in negs that would print differently. Also, not everyone uses graded papers. My test would work for either graded or vc papers.

You can pontificate all you want. It is now clear that you don't understand staining developers.

steve simmons

[Ole Tjugen]

... The color of the stain acts as a neutral density but if the color of the stain has the effect of blocking more of the light from the light source, remember, the stain is proportional to the silver denisty so more density = more stain, and if the color of the stain of one developer holds back more of the light from the light soruce than does the color of the stain from a different developer, then one neg may print with more or less contrast. A strict CI approach will overlook this factor.

...

... My test would work for either graded or vc papers.
...

Neutral is eactly what the density from stain isn't - as I discovered when I tried printing the same negative on graded and VC paper. The stain acted as an extra soft filter, and no matter how much magenta I put in (up tp the limit of my enlarger head) the highlights were still way too soft. So I tried it on graded paper, and lo and behold - it turned out black and white! Not a single shade of gray to be found...

I finally decided the negative was unprintable on both - way too soft on VC, way too hard on graded - and printed it on POP instead. All right, it may have been a bit overdeveloped, and slightly fogged as well...

[steve simmons]

“other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI.”

Then you said

“VC papers will of course react differently since these papers are sensitive to both blue and green light, and in this case the color of the stain will indeed play a role in determining how the highlights print.”

This is my point. I am glad that at the moment you made the above note you understood how things work. You can not evelop to the same CI, as you criticized me for not doing, and expect to get the same results. What I did, with vc papers but it would also apply to graded papers, was test the dev time for the same film in PMK and Pyrocat so that my zone 8 print values matched. I did exposure tests to get the same zone 1 density. I then shot the same subject and developed the negs in the two developers according to the times determined in my tests. The PMK neg gave much better separation in the high values.


“If you do this you will eventually find a development time for each developer that will make a step wedge print on the same graded silver paper with the same tonal values.”

That is what I did. I found the dev times that made the zone 8 values match with the two developers. Apparently I did what you are now suggesting.




"Steve. What you say is very confuisng. You say that "there needs to be a private converesaion", (sic) and then you say "let's keep- everythingt out in the open." (sic)


Here is what I said, read my post

"There need be no private conversations Sandy. Lets keep everything out in the open."

You’ve quoted me twice in your posts so I do not know where you got the above statement.

I hope this exchange is interesting to people other than just myself. My goal with the upcoming article(s) and in this thread to to shed some light on how staining developers work. I would like to bring this discussion out into more light by making the converation available to more people, hence my interest in doing the material in View Camera. Sandy can now participate in this lighting exercise or not.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Sandy, you can devise whatever test you want to try and get around what you said but it is now public. You simply do not understand how a staining developer really works. I am glad we've had this conversation as know I understand why we've had trouble communicating. Your statement that I did a bad test becasue I did not match CI shows the falacy in your thinking. To match CI could easily result in negs that would print differently. Also, not everyone uses graded papers. My test would work for either graded or vc papers.

You can pontificate all you want. It is now clear that you don't understand staining developers.

steve simmons

I will post the correct method to test this in an hour or so in another thread and let anyone who is interested try it themsevles. Hopefully there will be enough people interested enough to try this, and if so you will see how wrong you are.

As I said before, I am really astonished that your understanding of this issue is so poor, but facts are facts and when a few people have carried out the test as I describe what I am saying is true will become so obvious that no reasonable purpose would deny it.

Sandy

[sanking]

Neutral is eactly what the density from stain isn't - as I discovered when I tried printing the same negative on graded and VC paper. The stain acted as an extra soft filter, and no matter how much magenta I put in (up tp the limit of my enlarger head) the highlights were still way too soft. So I tried it on graded paper, and lo and behold - it turned out black and white! Not a single shade of gray to be found...

I finally decided the negative was unprintable on both - way too soft on VC, way too hard on graded - and printed it on POP instead. All right, it may have been a bit overdeveloped, and slightly fogged as well...

I am using the term neutral in the way that Howard Bond used it in his article. The stain, whateve its color, adds proportional printing density, but this density, whatever its color, has a neutral effect on a blue sensitve emulsion.

In fact, your account above reflects what I have said about the different way VC and graded silver papers print when exposed with pyro stained negatives.

For more, see the test I just proposed in another thread for comparing how graded papers print with staining and non-staining devleopers.

The stain is not neutral with VC papers, in that the color of the stain has a different impact on blue sensitive and green sensitive parts of the emulsion.


Sandy King

[sanking]

You continue to miss important points. The color of the stain has an effect on the amount of light from the light source. The color of the stain acts as a neutral density but if the color of the stain has the effect of blocking more of the light from the light source, remember, the stain is proportional to the silver denisty so more density = more stain, and if the color of the stain of one developer holds back more of the light from the light soruce than does the color of the stain from a different developer, then one neg may print with more or less contrast. A strict CI approach will overlook this factor.

This issue has confused strict sensitometrists for years who can not get away from the densitometer is holy approach. This is what makes staining developers special but confounding to some.


steve simmons

Again, you totally miss the point. What I have proposed is the the comparision negatives be developed so that they have the same "effective printing contrast." I am not concerned with sensitiometry for this discussion, and I have only used the term CI in the sense of "effective printing contrast" which can only be determined empirically with stained negatives. That is why we use a step wedge for the comparison testing and not sensitometry.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

There has been a lot of debate about how to develop to a common CI, but unless one is using process control strips for their testing, it's more likely that they're calculating Average Gradient than Contrast Index, which is a very specific term. How an Average Gradient is calculated seems to be the sticking point in this debate. King seems to favor a densitometer with blue filtration to measure the transmissive densities of a stained stepwedge, while Steve favors a more practical approach, using the actual printing paper to be used in the tests. This approach has also been recommended by Pat Gainer*, and makes a lot more sense in practice, because a blue filter doesn't "read" to stain in exactly the same way the printing paper does. It is very clear that a negative developed to a given contrast as measured by a blue filter in a densitometer will print to a different contrast on both graded and VC papers, giving three variations on the way the stain is "seen". The blue filter will more closely approximate the sensitivity of graded papers than VC papers, but it is not an exact match the way using the actual paper is. While it seems clear that Steve is on the right track to producing the most meaningful and practical data, his test procedure might be improved by implementing some of Gainer's suggestions. In short, a densitometer provides an analog to a printing paper, but it is not and cannot be as accurate as using the paper itself. I'm testing Kentmere Kentona, Kentmere Fineprint VC, and Azo G2 Canadian with a few different staining developers, and none are an exact match with the blue filtration of my densitometer.

I think it would require some sophisticated color analysis and a densitometer capable of combining filters to produce a range of colors to match the stain to be measured for any kind of accuracy that approaches using the paper itself. Perhaps a curve that represents the differences in the ways the densitometer and printing paper see a particular stain could be generated and applied to the curve as generated by the densitometer reading to more closely approximate a paper's reponse to the stain? The above seems a lot more practical than a color-mixing densitometer, and it seems like someone who worked with digital negatives would have a good idea how it could be done. In the meantime, it's hard to argue that a densitometer is a closer approximation to the printing paper than is the paper itself.


*A step density wedge is a very handy thing to have, and it need not be a calibrated one for this purpose. If you contact print the step wedge on a piece of film, as another of our esteemed posters said, and then contact print the negative on the paper you are going to use, you can tell by the number of steps that show what original scene brightness range will "fit" the paper of your choice with the development you gave the negative of the step wedge. You can convert that information to contrast index if you also contact print the step wedge on the same paper. It is a simple matter of dividing the number of steps you can see in the print of the negative by the number of steps you can see in the print of the step wedge.

Jay

[sanking]

There has been a lot of debate about how to develop to a common CI, but unless one is using process control strips for their testing, it's more likely that they're calculating Average Gradient than Contrast Index, which is a very specific term. How an Average Gradient is calculated seems to be the sticking point in this debate. King seems to favor a densitometer with blue filtration to measure the transmissive densities of a stained stepwedge, while Steve favors a more practical approach, using the actual printing paper to be used in the tests. This approach has also been recommended by Pat Gainer*, and makes a lot more sense in practice, because a blue filter doesn't "read" to stain in exactly the same way the printing paper does.

Jay


If you read my response to Steve in the other thread you wil see that I am not advocating the use of a densitometer with blue filtration as the method for determining "effective printing contrast" or "effective printing CI". I am advocating the use of Stouffer transmission step wedge and real time testing with the paper of choice. The use of a densitometer with blue filtration gives a fairly accurate idea of CI with stained developers for most practical applications with silver graded papers, but it would not be sufficiently precise IMO for comparing, say, the effective printing contrast of a PMK, Pyrocat-HD or 510-Pyro negatives.

Sandy King

[bruce terry]

Can't stop myself.

PYRO WARS, aka the Steve and Sandy show.

Please let the inadvertent snappiness and blatant developer commercialism end.

I know nothing compared to either of these two experts, but since Gordon Hutchings is the Quiet Man on the subject of Pyro, I'll take his silence to mean my life's probably OK with plain old flexible Pyro (without the staining bath) until a really fair and balanced grown up study sez PyroW2Cat51AC is clearly the better animal in an open tray with Tri-X@200, for example....but not OK with AZO....but OK for platinum contacts....but not OK for silver enlargements....etc.

[sanking]

Can't stop myself.

PYRO WARS, aka the Steve and Sandy show.

Please let the inadvertent snappiness and blatant developer commercialism end.

I know nothing compared to either of these two experts, but since Gordon Hutchings is the Quiet Man on the subject of Pyro, I'll take his silence to mean my life's probably OK with plain old flexible Pyro (without the staining bath) until a really fair and balanced grown up study sez PyroW2Cat51AC is clearly the better animal in an open tray with Tri-X@200, for example....but not OK with AZO....but OK for platinum contacts....but not OK for silver enlargements....etc.


I apologize for any role I played in diverting this thread from its true purpose, which was the best method for dealing with scenes of very high contrast, to the relatively small, but rather intense, areas of disagreement Steve Simmons and I have about pyro staining developers.

However, the method I advocate for dealing with scenes of high contrast, reduced agitation with dilute solutions, is not developer dependent since it can be used with a number of developers, staining and other, that give good results with reduced agitation. Other methods may or may not work as well, or they may work better. In any event getting it right with scenes of very high contrast will require a fair amount of experimentation for best results.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

You criticized me in my comparison between PMK and Pyrocat because I did not match the CI. You made comments that I did the comparison poorly. As it turns out I did the test just the way you are now recommending.

It is difficult to engage in a spirited conversation with you because you wander in what you are debating. You started criticizing me for not matching the CI and then you switched to effective printing contrast. EPC is what I did in my test, just as you now suggest for this test.

I am going to learn the stand development process and compare PMK and Pyrocat in the next couple of months. Since you have not agreed to participate in this article I will do the article myself. If you change your mind let me know.

steve simmons

[sanking]

You criticized me in my comparison between PMK and Pyrocat because I did not match the CI. You made comments that I did the comparison poorly. As it turns out I did the test just the way you are now recommending.

steve simmons


No Steve, you just simply don't get it. Your tests were flawed. If they had been done correctly, i.e. the effective printing contrast perfectly matched, they would have printed the same on the graded silver papers that you claim to have used in the test. And that is the point I have been all over from the time your tests was published. Nothing complicated abou the point, and non wandering. And stating falsehoods won't change the reality. But I can see why you want to misrepresent the facts. Your credibility and reputation are on the line, and the facts are not on your side, and things are going to get worse rather than better for you as people actually do the test I suggest and report their finding.

The issues is very simple. Negatives developed in different developers, even in stained compared to non-stained one, can be developed so that they print with the same reproducition of the densities of a step wedge (and from scenes in nature) on graded silver papers, if both negatives are developed to the same effective density range. That is a fact that people will soon report after they try the testing I describe. Exactly what Howard Bond found and reported for graded silver papers in his excellent article on pyro developers published in Photo Techniques in September/October 2004.

So ipso facto, your tests were flawed, both in concept and in execution, and your results plainly prove that fact. If you had adjusted the effective printing contrast of the Pyrocat-HD and PMK negatives, as should have been done for a valid test, they would reproduced the tonal values the same way on the graded silver paper, all the way from the shadows to the upper highlight. In fact, the same would be true of a D76 negative.

It actually would have been much better for your case if you had used a VC paper for the tests. In that case there almost certainly would have been a more highlight detail with the PMK negative because yellow-green stain gives more compensation in the highlights than the brown stain of Pyrocat-HD and other developers of the same color, including WD2D and Diaxactol. But sadly, you cling to the misguided notion that pyro stained negatives will provide compensation with graded papers as they do with VC papers, and that is just flat out wrong. And not only wrong, but easily disproved. I am actually beginning to believe that you may have used VC papers in the test, not graded papers, since this is the only thing that can explain what you report.


Sandy

[sanking]

I am going to learn the stand development process and compare PMK and Pyrocat in the next couple of months. Since you have not agreed to participate in this article I will do the article myself. If you change your mind let me know.

steve simmons

I must have missed your invitation.

If I were to change my mind, what type of collaboration do you envision? Would you be willing to have the final results evaluated by one or more independent third parties?

In any event, the issue of type of agitation is somthing that I am planning as part of my pyro study with K. Keyes and T. Hoskinson, though we plan to study several different staining and non-staining developers, with a variety of agitation methods, not just PMK versus Pyrocat-HD with stand.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

Go back and read through this thread. I have invited you several times to send prints to be judged. We would then each pick out 5 prints and write about them ourselves and also have the judges write about them.

You apparently not only missed this repeated invitation but many things I've said.

"Would you be willing to have the final results evaluated by one or more independent third parties?"

Take a minute and review this thread. You will see that I repeatedly invited you to participate in an article where our prints would be judged by 5 people, two that you would pick, two that I would pick, and one neutral person who does not use a staining developer. The results would be shown in View Camera with their comments. You have not responded to this invitation so I will proceed without you. You are not being excuded. You simply are avoiding participation. I will save theis thread for future reference should you ever claim to have been excluded.


You play this game of claiming that you suggested articles on pyro and staining developers but when I invited you in this thread you now claim to have missed the invitation and in an earlier post you claimed there was no need to work with View Camera becasue you had your own goup to pass info around.

You are all over the place King. You pretend to want to collaborate but when it comes right down to it you duck and weave. The same with the conferences. You always have an excuse to stay in theshadows and just throw stones.

Come on Sandy, come out into the light.

steve simmons

[steve simmons]

"It actually would have been much better for your case if you had used a VC paper for the tests. In that case there almost certainly would have been a more highlight detail with the PMK negative because yellow-green stain gives more compensation in the highlights than the brown stain of Pyrocat-HD and other developers of the same color, including WD2D and Diaxactol"


OK, se we agree that PMK provides more compensation, which I will interpret as better high value separation, with VC papers than does PMK. Since a large percentage of black and white printers use VC papers we agree that for them PMK will give better high value separation.

Good, we are making progress.

I do not remember sayng in the article that i used a graded paper. Can you show me where I said any such thing?

steve

[sanking]

Go back and read through this thread. I have invited you several times to send prints to be judged. We would then each pick out 5 prints and write about them ourselves and also have the judges write about them.

You apparently not only missed this repeated invitation but many things I've said.

You play this game of claiming that you suggested articles on pyro and staining developers but when I invited you in this thread you now claim to have missed the invitation and in an earlier post you claimed there was no need to work with View Camera becasue you had your own goup to pass info around.

You are al over the place King. You pretend to want to collaborate but when it comes right down to it you duck and weave. The same with the conferences. You always have an excuse to stay in theshadows and just throw stones.

Come on Sandy, come out into the light.

steve simmons

No, if that is the invitation to which you refer, yes I read it and I decline. I am not interested in this kind of format as it as basically confrontational. I thought you might have meant something else.

As for your comments about my reasons for declining to participate in the View Camera Conference in previous years, you are just all wet. I have been working as a full-time professor until just recently, and the VC conference in both 2004 and 2005 conflicted with my professional responsibilities and in earning a living for my family and paying my bills. Attending your conference in those years would have resulted in a great loss of income to me, not counting the expenses of attending the conference. And this year the VC conference conflicted with my carbon workshop at the Formulary, a workshop that I scheduled with the Formulary in June 2005, well before you published plans for the 2006 VC confernce. I participated in your first conference and enjoyed it at lot. So no, you are just plain wrong in what you say about my motives for not taking part in recent years in the VC conference. Let me remark that a great number of other people who might have attended may well have had similar professional obligations. Attendance at the 2006 conference was what, 150 or less persons?

Regarding the pyro article, I am determined to do a compehensive, thorough and objective study of the issue of staining versus non-staining developers, involving outside review independent of me and the other two collaborators. The scope of this article will be well beyond the scope of the klnd of articles you publish in View Camera, and for that reason I believe it will be better placed in an on-line journal. Also, I have no intention of relinquishing control of this study, which is very important to me, to an editor whose intentions I have no reason to trust.

I don't know why I bother to explain any of this to you since I know the result will be the same, i.e. continuing abuse from you. But hopefully other readers will see through your duplicity and constant attacks.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

If you read my response to Steve in the other thread you wil see that I am not advocating the use of a densitometer with blue filtration as the method for determining "effective printing contrast" or "effective printing CI". I am advocating the use of Stouffer transmission step wedge and real time testing with the paper of choice. The use of a densitometer with blue filtration gives a fairly accurate idea of CI with stained developers for most practical applications with silver graded papers, but it would not be sufficiently precise IMO for comparing, say, the effective printing contrast of a PMK, Pyrocat-HD or 510-Pyro negatives.

Sandy King

Sandy,

it seems your using contradictory terminology to describe your procedure vs Steve's:


OK, you don't understand the issues, and frankly I am fresh out of trying to explain them to you, other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI.

Considering your academic background, you should know the importance of using clear and unambiguous language. At best, you're not writing very clearly, and at worse, your playing games with your terminology in an attempt to discredit Steve. Above you're clearly referring to developing film to a common CI, or were you refering to some procedure by which paper is developed to a common CI, which is to be known henceforth as "Effective Printing Contrast"? Your argument has devolved to something along the lines that a proper experiment will show no differences between developers, which highlights your preferrence for stepwedges over actual photographs. There's a lot that a stepwedge can't tell us about the printing characteristics of a negative, which is why Steve's test was a good one. The fact that Steve prefers another developer to yours, and has said so publically, and repeatedly, seems to have offended you personally, and inspired your many public criticisms of his testing methodology, but when it comes down to describing an actual procedure to be preferred to his, you seem to be falling all over yourself to try to distinguish your test from his, and convince us that yours is the one true test by which all developers perform equally, proving Steve's test invalid because he found differences. If you think Steve's reputation is going to be diminished by this thread, I think you should look a little closer to home, but if it's any consolation, my opinion of you remains unchanged.

Jay

[David Karp]

Perhaps waiting a while and re-reading your posts before sending them might result in a more measured tone. The substance here is interesting. The vitriol is not.

[sanking]

"It actually would have been much better for your case if you had used a VC paper for the tests. In that case there almost certainly would have been a more highlight detail with the PMK negative because yellow-green stain gives more compensation in the highlights than the brown stain of Pyrocat-HD and other developers of the same color, including WD2D and Diaxactol"


OK, se we agree that PMK provides more compensation, which I will interpret as better high value separation, with VC papers than does PMK. Since a large percentage of black and white printers use VC papers we agree that for them PMK will give better high value separation.

Good, we are making progress.

I do not remember sayng in the article that i used a graded paper. Can you show me where I said any such thing?

steve


[I]
I do not remember saying in the article that I used a graded paper. Can you show me where I said any such thing?

steve

Curious. I thought you wrote somewhere that you did not introduce the variable of VC papers into your test, but perhaps I am mistaken. So you used VC papers, then?

I had a look just now at the comparison article you published in View Camera in July/August 2004. At no point in that article do you mention what type of paper you used, though you write, "These negatives will print beautifully as projection prints onto enlarging paper or as a contact print made with enlarging paper."

So what paper did you use, VC or graded papers? Or did you just scan the negatives and make your evaluations from the monitor or inkjet prints? If so, you have perpetuated one of the very greatest frauds and deceptions on the LF community I have ever witnessed.

My God, now I found it. You did indeed scan the negatives and your evaluation was based on either inkjet prints or views on the monitor made from these scans.

At http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17946&page=4 your wrote. “You are wrong Sandy about my testing. I made direct and unmanipulated scans of the negs and showed the results. I did not introduce the variable of vc or graded papers. The PMK negs simply showed better shadow detail and better high value separation. Period.”

You have just lost every bit of credibility you had remaining with me, and I suspect when the news of this thread gets out to persons you have accused of bias in their testing procedures, like Howard Bond, who has made real tests with both VC and graded papers and reported his methodology and conclusions, you are going to be a laughing stock in the LF community. What you have done is truly scandalous. You base a comparison of sharpness of two developers capable of delivering resolution in the 75 lppm category by comparison with inkjet prints, where the maximum possible resolution is in the 8 lppm range, or on subjective evaluation on your monitor? And with your own scans, not bothering to provide any details, or even to note the fact that the comparison was made with scans and not with real prints on VC or graded silver papers? It just boggles my mind that you would think this was a fair comparison, or that anything of this nature should be published. And I sure am looking forward to what Jorge thinks of this, especially given the reasons you gave for rejecting his contribution. He made real prints on real silver papers. You just gave us smoke, mirrors and deception.



Sandy

[sanking]

If you think Steve's reputation is going to be diminished by this thread, I think you should look a little closer to home, but if it's any consolation, my opinion of you remains unchanged.

Jay

You may think otherwise after you read my last post.

And if not, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

Sandy, do you really believe your last post. I compared the tonal values on the negs. This is the purest form of comparison. The Pyrocat neg did not have the tonal sep of the PMK neg. I did not introduce any additional variables. The Pyrocat neg failed badly by comparison. You have also admitted that with vc papers the PMK neg would do better. The comparisons were made from hi res scans. No manipulation at all. And I did follow the lead of your posts here and tested each one to get an EPC with vc papers and matched densities for zone 8 and worked to get the exposure so that zone 1 densities matched. When you start making prints you add the variables of the brand of paper and its ability to separate high values and the ability of the print developer to do the same. I removed, or did not introduce, these variables.

As Jay said, you are manipulating language to try and keep yourself in the game. But by your own admission and by these pure tests the Pyrocat is coming in second. If the detail and tonal separation is not in the neg it can not be in the print. The Pyrocat neg did not have as good a tonal separation all the way up and down the scale, but especially in the high values, as the PMK neg did.

Sorry, thems the facts!

steve

[Colin Graham]

I compared the tonal values on the negs. This is the purest form of comparison.
steve

Frame your negs often, do you? I can't tell how good a negative is until I print it.

[Jay DeFehr]

Sandy,


before you start feeling morally superior, maybe you should check out some of your old threads and testing methodologies. Here's one where you describe your testing methodology for comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD with graded and VC papers. Your methodology as described in that thread is much different from the one you're advocating here, and by your own reckoning, deeply flawed:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11377&highlight=edge+effects

It seems to me that I remember you writing about using a scanner to analyse negative sharpness somewhere; I'll see if I can dig it up. In the meantime, here's a thread discussing the usefulness of scanners for film analysis:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18747&page=1&pp=10&highlight=edge+effects

I'd keep that first stone in my pocket, if I were you.

Jay

[David A. Goldfarb]

Sandy, do you really believe your last post. I compared the tonal values on the negs. This is the purest form of comparison. The Pyrocat neg did not have the tonal sep of the PMK neg. I did not introduce any additional variables. The Pyrocat neg failed badly by comparison. You have also admitted that with vc papers the PMK neg would do better. The comparisons were made from hi res scans. No manipulation at all. And I did follow the lead of your posts here and tested each one to get an EPC with vc papers and matched densities for zone 8 and worked to get the exposure so that zone 1 densities matched. When you start making prints you add the variables of the brand of paper and its ability to separate high values and the ability of the print developer to do the same. I removed, or did not introduce, these variables.

I'm not picking sides on the general PMK vs. Pyrocat-HD issue here (I use ABC, PMK, and RAF Pyro-Metol myself), but a scanner is much more panchromatic than graded or VC paper, and the difference that Sandy is observing between the way VC and graded papers depends, as I understand it, on the difference in spectral sensitivity between VC and graded paper. Azo is yet something else, since it has greater UV sensitivity, and I'm not sure at all about the UV sensitivity of a scanner, not to mention the UV output of a scanner bulb, and a key issue is the UV density of the stain vs. the UV density of the silver. The paper that a scanner would be closest to would be Panalure, and who would perform such a test on Panalure? One could scan in color and adjust the channels perhaps to approximate the spectral sensitivity curves of different papers, but I think that would be more of a test of the scanability of pyro negs than it would be a test of their printability on conventional papers.

I'm also a bit sceptical about judgments by eye of stained negs on a light table, because pyro negs often print with more contrast than they appear to have (as Ansel Adams and Gordon Hutchings observe). Sure, under the green light an experienced practitioner can develop by inspection and put the neg in the ballpark (in part because under a green light, the eye sees more like the paper sees), but for this kind of test I think a real print or densitometer reading carries more information.

[Turner Reich]

You can't just leave it there, I admire and respect both of the experts here and now I am confused, should I toss out my densitometer and where does Azo and Panalure paper come into play since they are not mainstream now Mr. Goldfarb?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Lots of LF printers are still using Azo until they run out, and there is a replacement paper in the works from an East European manufacturer, which will have similar properties, so it's still quite relevant. For alt process printers, the issue of UV density is still more important.

My point about Panalure was on some level rhetorical. Trying to use an "unmanipulated" scan to judge how a stained neg will print on graded or VC paper is like trying to use Panalure to see how a stained neg will print on graded or VC paper.

[steve simmons]

I have learned in my 35 years or printing stained and non stained negs that the one with the better tonal separation will be easier to print. I also have 25 years of experience with stained negs. The PMK had the better tonal separation. Why take a neg with poorer tonal sep and spend hours trying to make a good print when you have a neg with better tonal sep in your other hand?

One of the things that people who try PMK have said over and over again for years is that after working with all types and styles of 'special ' formula and never being satisfied that their negs with PMK simply fall out of the enlarger and a good print the first or second try just happens.

The PMK formula and The Book of Pyro have been around for years. 25 or so for the formula and about 12 for the book. They both have stood the test of time and faced a lot of public scrutiny. Pyrocatechol formula fell out of favor years ago becasue they were hard to work with and unstable. Given all of the adjusting that the pyrocat hd is going through I suspect it was not tested thoroughly before it was brought to market. Lets see what its reputation is in 12 years.

In the meantime I would suggest that anyone interested in staining developers get a copy of The Book of Pyro. Bostick and Sullivan a d the Formulary both have them available. It will always be a good reference.

steve simmons

[Michael Kadillak]

the Pyrocatechol formula fell out of favor years ago because they were hard to work with and unstable. Given all of the adjusting that the pyrocat hd is going through I suspect it was not tested thoroughly before it was brought to market. steve simmons

Wrong wrong wrong. Sandy admitted that he used PMK for nearly 10 years himself BEFORE he embarked on his extensive work with an improvement on a developer that worked for his needs that resulted in the Pyrocat HD developer that thousands of folks have discovered and continue to use extensively. It is NOT hard to work with and it is NOT unstable. The variations of the formulation are not a result of a failure of the original formulation to work in any capacity, it is simply a willingness to consider other variables in the procedure with the same base ingredients to make it even better. It is not a destination, but a journey. I bought the book and tried PMK and discarded it as a viable developer for me because I wanted to contact print as opposed to project and Pyrocat HD performed marvelously with the JOBO system IMHO. Additionally, Pyrocat HD is in a class by itself with Stand and Semi Stand developing. For me and many others I will continue to use it and recommend it to others as I have with T Max 400 sheet film.

If you prefer PMK and want to recommend it to people Steve, then go ahead and do so. But leave it at that. There is absolutely no reason to spread falsehoods or bash anyone for disagreeing with you in that contention. I feel that the ongoing contention has its root in this fundamental unwillingness of respectfully disagreeing and letting it go.

Cheers!

[steve simmons]

I have been contact printing PMK negs for 20+ years on graded, vc and azo. The myth that it does not work for contact printig is just a falsehood. PMK also works well for plat/pall printing.As for my bashing others it was sandy who through out the locker room slur for which he has never apologized for. You are confused Michael, perhaps you need to study some recent photo history and see who has bashed whom.

I am the one who has had his methodology slammed by several people here. Sandy bashed me for not developing the negs to matching CI and then admitted doing so would not work and the EPC, which you get with Picker's process, was really the way to go. Someone else bashed me for not being scientific enough and then he went on to admit that he takes his negs that should be developed for times from 4.5 to 6.5 minutes and just throws them in a JOBO for an average time of a little over 5 minutes becasue it really does not matter.

If you prefer another formula that is fine. But be careful about putting out falsehoods about either myself or PMK. I will gladly correct the record each time.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

PMK also works well for plat/pall printing

Sorry, it does not work any where as good as Pyrocat HD does. If anything, ABC and/or WD2D are better developers for pt/pd than PMK. PMK produces too much general stain!

In the end it is a shame you claimed to make a "direct" comparison under false pretenses. You dont "correct" the record evry time, you shimply show little understanding of testing procedures and as it happens an unveleibable amount of dishonesty pretending to have made at least paper tests when you did not even make a simple print......shame on you!

[steve simmons]

"you shimply show little understanding of testing procedures and as it happens an unveleibable amount of dishonesty pretending to have made at least paper tests when you did not even make a simple print......shame on you!"(sic)

I never made any such claim. Read the article. I was very honest about what i did. My work has been on public record now with this test for two years. No one complained about this at the time.

My testing method at the time is what Sandy now recommends. When Sandy does it it is science but when I do it I am sloppy and don't understand. Sheer hypocracy is all these people are left with. If you were such an expert as you want to believe your attempt at writing for View Camera would have been successful. Instead, your paper was unscientific, poorly organized, and full of incomplete information and you did not even send the prints you told me you were going to send. That speaks to your ability and knowledge. Everyone who reviewed it for me, and I did not tell you who the last 4 were becasue you were so vulgar and abusive to the first one, said the same thing. If your paper was so good why has no other. photo magazine not picked it up?

steve simmons

[Michael Kadillak]

I have been contact printing PMK negs for 20+ years on graded, vc and azo. The myth that it does not work for contact printig is just a falsehood. PMK also works well for plat/pall printing. steve simmons

Well it was Gordon Hutchings at the Albuquerque conference that stated without hesitation on point when questioned on this subject by me that after personal conversations with Michael Smith and viewing sample contact prints done with PMK and other pyro formulations (including ABC and W2D2 as well as others) that PMK is optimal as a pyro enlarging formulation and NOT a contact printing formulation. Gordon is not a contact printer but he is a reputable person that tells it like it is. Yes, any developer will "work" in the literal sense of the word but the difference between mediocre and awsome in the final print is recognized by the truly descriminating photographer that does not get hung up on the specifics of the process, but the final outcome. Your statement to the contrary simply does not hold water from an esthetic perspective as PMK is NOT the best choice for AZO or any alt process.

I arrived at the same independent visual conclusion when I decided to abandoned PMK.

[bruce terry]

"Well it was Gordon Hutchings at the Albuquerque conference that stated without hesitation on point when questioned on this subject by me that after personal conversations with Michael Smith and viewing sample contact prints done with PMK and other pyro formulations (including ABC and W2D2 as well as others) that PMK is optimal as a pyro enlarging formulation and NOT a contact printing formulation."

Now that's interesting.

[Ron Marshall]

Which of the Pyro developers would be best for scanning?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

My testing method at the time is what Sandy now recommends.

LOL...sorry but you are no where near the testing method Sandy recommends! Showing once more the lack of understanding you have about testing procedures. If you think Sandy recommends that silly little max black test for rigorous testing you understand less than even I thought you did.

PS, I will gladly read the article if you post it for free, I have no intention of paying for something that seems to be very substandard.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This has been Mr. Hutchins' postion for a long time and if I am not mistaken it is even expressed in his book.


Well it was Gordon Hutchings at the Albuquerque conference that stated without hesitation on point when questioned on this subject by me that after personal conversations with Michael Smith and viewing sample contact prints done with PMK and other pyro formulations (including ABC and W2D2 as well as others) that PMK is optimal as a pyro enlarging formulation and NOT a contact printing formulation. Gordon is not a contact printer but he is a reputable person that tells it like it is. Yes, any developer will "work" in the literal sense of the word but the difference between mediocre and awsome in the final print is recognized by the truly descriminating photographer that does not get hung up on the specifics of the process, but the final outcome. Your statement to the contrary simply does not hold water from an esthetic perspective as PMK is NOT the best choice for AZO or any alt process.

I arrived at the same independent visual conclusion when I decided to abandoned PMK.

[steve simmons]

here is one of Sandy's comments

"if both negatives are developed to the same effective density range."

He suggests getting to this by testing a variety of dev times to get the desired print tones. This is the same as the min time for max black. King also sates several times that PMK is a better developer for vc papers. Just go back and read through this thread and the other one he started.

Jorge, your paper showed how little you know about black and white photography and your willingness to criticze me for about an article you admit to not having read shows how bankrupt you are on this topic and how willing you are to post on topics you know knothing about.

The test I did was a pure look at two films, Tri-X and FP4+, developed in PMK and Pyrocat, and how they responded to these two staining developers. The negs developed in PMK had better tonal separation, especially in the high values. If my tests showed the Pyrocat had the better set of tones you would not be challenging my methods at all. Pure hypocracy.

When you can produce a good paper on the subject I will reconsider my opinion of you as now just someone who talks science but practices a self imposed regimen of slop and back room alchemy.

Again, your paper ruined your reputation as knowing anything about this topic. Until you produce something worthwhile, or get another reputable publication to publish that article you should hide and take some workshops from people who know something.

steve simmons

[Jay DeFehr]

Many here are quick to scorn Steve for not making prints in his testing (which I believe is a mistake), but not a single word of reproach for Sandy King, who has been very dishonest about his own testing, and practiced exactly the kind of poor methodology he viciously criticized Steve for using. For King to claim moral superiority here requires the kind of unmitigated gall he's displayed over and over, when he thinks he can get away with it. His credibility was lost with me a long time ago, but anyone who still considers him a reliable source of honest information should ask him to reconcile his testing methodology as described in the apug thread, with the one he advocates here. In the meantime, he might want to dial his righteous indignation back a few notches.

Jay

[Michael Kadillak]

Once Sandy publishes his results, they will stand slone and set this subject straight once and for all.

Furthermore, Sandy is one person that has the credentials for being held in the highest esteem after years of independent hard work in the conventional and alternative photographic processes having his work published extensively. Plus he has the prints to back up every bit of knowledge he so graciously shares with the LF community. Nobody discussed the fact that Gordon Hutchings make several hundred thousand dollars publishing his Pyro book while Sandy shared his knowledge base freely over the internet and has taken time to answer all questions posted by the LF community. That speaks for itself.

Additionally he (Sandy) recently retired after nearly 35 years as an esteemed college professor so he understands the process of theory and academic conclusions and can defend his procedures as eloquently as anyone that graces our presence.

I would love to have the opportunity to read any of your articles that you have published Jay. Until that time, please leave you opinions of Sandy to yourself.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, your paper showed how little you know about black and white photography and your willingness to criticze me for about an article you admit to not having read shows how bankrupt you are on this topic and how willing you are to post on topics you know knothing about.

Actually it showed how little you understand about scientific testing and the science of photography. Anybody here who has read what I have written and what you have written can tell who is the more experienced with sensitometry and designing a comparison. At least I am able to present numbers and charts to back up my claims, all you can do is say "this is how it looked to me and how I can best print" with no proof whatsoever other thna your inept eyes.

Sorry, it is you the one who is ignorant, but you are welcome to prove me wrong, post your silly little article so we can all see the kind of testing you do.....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

SOrry, but in this you are wrong. Sandy has been using the BTZS far, far longer than you have. You are making yourself look bad by writting something it is not true.


Many here are quick to scorn Steve for not making prints in his testing (which I believe is a mistake), but not a single word of reproach for Sandy King, who has been very dishonest about his own testing, and practiced exactly the kind of poor methodology he viciously criticized Steve for using. For King to claim moral superiority here requires the kind of unmitigated gall he's displayed over and over, when he thinks he can get away with it. His credibility was lost with me a long time ago, but anyone who still considers him a reliable source of honest information should ask him to reconcile his testing methodology as described in the apug thread, with the one he advocates here. In the meantime, he might want to dial his righteous indignation back a few notches.

Jay

[steve simmons]

from kadillak

"Nobody discussed the fact that Gordon Hutchings make several hundred thousand dollars "

Surely you would not make this statement without proof. Please share it with us. If youhave no proof of this then this is just another example of the character assasination that happens when you disagree with these people of the pyrocat group. Come on Kadillak, show us your proof or make a retraction.

" ..can defend his procedures "

which have been inconsistent and he apparently now advocates a process that is the same I used in my article and have been using for years. If it is good enough for King why not anyone else.

When they can not win on logic and hard evidernce they result to this type of sleazy comment. It is off topic and not relevant to the conversation.

steve simmons

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

your hero worship of Sandy King is well documented, and so your response to my criticisms are not surprising. As for my voicing of my opinions, I'll do as I please.

Jorge,

Did you read the apug thread? In it, King clearly describes using negatives developed to a common contrast as measured by the blue filter in his densitometer as the basis for his comparison of Pyrocat HD and PMK. In this forum he has denounced that practice and anyone dumb enough not to understand why. This has nothing to do with BTZS testing, or who has used that system longer. If what I say is not true, I think you should explain why it's not.

Jay

[steve simmons]

From Jorge

"This has been Mr. Hutchins' postion for a long time and if I am not mistaken it is even expressed in his book."

Where in the book does he say this? Please show me. Or is this another mis-statement by the pyrocat group to defend their position?

Here is the conversation that occurred between Gordon and Michael Smith. Gordon said that ABC was a good developer for contact prints in the old days becasue older films were grainy and ABC was a grainy developer. He never said it was better. This is a myth that has been perpetuated by others to again defend their position.

Come on Jorge, read before you speak out. Your mis-statements are just giving me a chance to show that you don;t jnow what you are talking about because you aren't doing your homework. You are far to anxious to blast me and you are repeatedly wronmg.

So come on Kadillak, show us your proof of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Gordon has made and come on Jorge, show where in the Book of Pyro Gordon says what you are claiming.

If you can't then you owe this forum an apology.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I suggest you read the book, in any case, the coment about PMK not being good for contatc printing is well known and acknowledged by Hutchins. You on the other hand are a liar, you implied you made print and as it turns out you only compared scans....you have no cerdibility left, you are the one who not only is ignorant, but dishonest as well, you really should be ashamed of your lack of honesty.

At least I have an article with prints, you have nothing but a "looks good to me". You are pathetic. Bottome line, I am glad to post my article here, are you? so people can compare who knows what he is talking about a who does not!


From Jorge

"This has been Mr. Hutchins' postion for a long time and if I am not mistaken it is even expressed in his book."

Where in the book does he say this? Please show me. Or is this another mis-statement by the pyrocat group to defend their position?

Here is the conversation that occurred between Gordon and Michael Smith. Gordon said that ABC was a good developer for contact prints in the old days becasue older films were grainy and ABC was a grainy developer. He never said it was better. This is a myth that has been perpetuated by others to again defend their position.

Come on Jorge, read before you speak out. Your mis-statements are just giving me a chance to show that you don;t jnow what you are talking about because you aren't doing your homework. You are far to anxious to blast me and you are repeatedly wronmg.

So come on Kadillak, show us your proof of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Gordon has made and come on Jorge, show where in the Book of Pyro Gordon says what you are claiming.

If you can't then you owe this forum an apology.

steve simmons

[steve simmons]

"you implied you made print and as it turns out you only compared scans...."

I was very clear in the article I made direct scans of the negs. But then you have not read the article so how would you know either way?


You made a claim about what Gordon said in his book. Show us where. Go ahead. Or is this another false claim to try and defend your bankrupt position???


I have asked Gordon about that statement and it was never made. The fact is that Gordon set up a very high standard for staining developers with his book and people have been throwing stones at him for years with lies and inuendos. Kadillak made one in this thread with a blatent lie about the hundreds of thousands of dollars Hutchings has made with his book. I know for a fact this is not true and kadillak would not have anyway of knowing any thing about this. But that did not stop him from making this absurd statement.

The typical approach of people like you, Kadillak, King, etc. is to make outrageous statements as a diversion and when challenged to then make more outrageous statements but never admit that the previous statements are lies.

So, Jorge, get your paper published by another reputable magazine to show us how good it is. Show us where Hutching said in his book that PMK was not good for contact printing.

Your failure to back up your claims shows us that there is no substance to them.

steve simmons

[Michael Kadillak]

Steve:

You can answer two important issues for all of us without a problem.

Send Gordon a short e-mail asking him how many copies of the Book Of Pyro he sold since it was published. Multipy that number (yes it will astound you) by the selling price and discount it a bit for materials and you will in fact get to the number I posted. His success is spawning others to emulate a similar publication.

Secondly, ask Gordon if PMK is the best developer for Azo or alt processes. And please let us know what he says. Won't take but a few minutes of your time.

Have a great day!

[steve simmons]

I have had many conversations with Gordon over the last 25 years on this topic. He, and many others, use PMK for enlarging and contact printing on graded apers, vc papers and Azo. It works fine for all of these applications.

You made the claim Kadillak about the money from the book, can you back it up. No, of course not. You can't back up any such foolish statement. You do not know how many copies of the book have been sold, you do not know the expenses of producing the book, the time involved, nd you are not even acknowledging the discount given to companies such as PF and B&S. You are completly uninformed about this matter yet you make a stupid and insulting statement. When I asked you to back it up you tell me it is my job to provide you the information. No, you should have the info before making this post but accuracy is not your goal. You were trying to cast aspersions about Hutching and make your hero look good. It was transparent and now you are caught empty handed. This is the game of your crowd, throw stones and then run and hide to a different location and throw more stones. You and Jorge are playing the same game. His accusing me of stating that I made prints when I did no such thing even thogh he has not read the article. His accusing me of not even doing the test when I did and the article says so. But then he never read the article so he should not comment on what he does not know about. But then that does not stop either one of you from posting inaccurate info and casting aspersions.. I was clear in my methodolgy whereas King has wandered with his.

Come on Mike, show us your proof. Or apologize.

steve simmons