View Camera magazine discussion group + More PMK kerfuffle

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Thanks Steve, I am looking forward to it.

[Tim Curry]

Steve,

Pyrocat-HD does not contain hydroquinone. Where did this information come from with respect to the specific chemical ingredients? Who did this research? When will a correction be printed to "correct the record"? Sandy King has gone to great lengths to create and refine this developer, it just seems the correct information is his due.

[Frank Petronio]

Can't we just make fun of spelllling errors and forget the Pyro Wars?

[steve simmons]

Steve, Pyrocat-HD does not contain hydroquinone. Where did this information come from with respect to the specific chemical ingredients? Who did this research? When will a correction be printed to "correct the record"? Sandy King has gone to great lengths to create and refine this developer, it just seems the correct information is his due>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I can correct that info but it will not change the results.

steve simmons

[Jay DeFehr]

It might change the results for those naive enough to take your published information at face value. Besides, it's just simply good editorial practice to print corrections of errors of fact. In the future you might consider a disclaimer along the following lines:

"View camera magazine, it's editor and staff make no claims of competence, due dilligence or fairness in our reporting of testing of materials, equipment or processes. Any losses secured by the adoption of our recommendations should be considered entirely coincidental to your subscription and or purchase of View Camera magazine, and in no way the responsibility of this publication, its editor, or its staff. To secure the maximum benefit from this publication, it should be handled carefully, by one corner (latex or nitrile gloves are recommended) placed in a metal container well clear of any buildings or other structures, and destroyed by fire. Failure to heed these recommendations could result in confusion and general dissatisfaction, which can be transmitted to others either verbally, or by direct physical contact with the magazine. Please use this product responsibly."

[steve simmons]

I have already stated w will correct the misstatement. However, as I said, the results are the results. In my testing of PMK and HD with FP4+ and Tri-X I prefer the PMK for the following reasons

- better shadow detail/higher film speed

- higher high values and more delicate tonal separations in the high values

- slightly sharper results but with slightly more visible grain.

steve simmons

[Nick Morris]

Hello Steve, I just the other day bought from my local bookstore the latest issue of View Camera. I have been buying the magazine on and off for a number of years, generally only buying those issues that contained articles of interest. Lately, I seem to be buying the magazine more regularly. That's not to say I like everything about the magazine, but I will contact you directly with my specific views concerning the content of the magazine. However, I did want you know that I have learned a lot about LF photography from the magazine, and that I like having available a publication dedicated to LF photography. So, thank you for all that you and the people at View Camera do to keep it going. Likewise, discussion groups continue to be a valuable resource for learning and for just sharing the mutual enjoyment of LF photography. Ain't life grand?

[sanking]

Steve,

Congratulations on getting the View Camera site up. I am certain it will be a good contribution to the large format community.

However, regarding reactions to your article in View Camera regarding PMK and Pyrocat-HD let me point out that there are seveal recent threads where there has been some serious discussion of this piece. In particular some have expressed the idea that your methodology is inadequate to reach some of the conclusions you reached and expressed as fact. That is my opinion as well. But you, and anyone else who may be interested, can read for themselves the comments in the following threads.

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/499000.html

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7997

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html

Rather then voice your opinions on this thread, which was begun to advertise your web site, which I applaud, why not join the discussions on the previously enjoined threads, or indeed, start a new one on the topic? I belive there are a number of persons highly competent in film testing interested in engaging with you in reasoned discussions of your tests and conclusions.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,
I know very good drugs against gastric hyperacidity, as some US spammers send some ads to me each day. Do you need some ones ?



Sure send them over, I will send you my spam for Viagra.....

[Charles Hohenstein]

Steve Simmons wrote:

"I have already stated w will correct the misstatement. However, as I said, the results are the results. In my testing of PMK and HD with FP4+ and Tri-X I prefer the PMK for the following reasons . . ."

But you already knew what you preferred before you began the test, and you were the one doing the evaluation. The bias built into such a test protocol is inevitable. To be meaningful, this kind of test has to be double-blind--the evaluators shouldn't know which developer they are looking at. Would you be interested in the results of one of those Pepsi challenge taste tests if the samples were marked Coke and Pepi?