Acutance or resolution?

[Keith Tapscott.]

I found this web page which shows the results of using 4 different developers. The image from a negative developed in ID11 diluted 1+3 and another which seems to be developed in a `Patrick Gainer` formula looks to have the best sharpness to me, although viewing images on the web might not be the same as viewing the actual photographs for real.
Place your mouse over each image to see which developer was used.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...rson+Acutol&start=18&gbv=2&ndsp=18&hl=en&sa=N

 

[RobC]

quite clearly the one you prefer is hgher contrast than the other three. High contrast emphasises the edges and edges give apparent sharpness. You simply can't tell from a web site like this, and especially from scanned negatives. There are way to many variables which may not be equal for each scan to make any kind of comparison. And besides, its how the neg prints under enlargement/projection with any particular system that will determine how sharp or high resolution you get in the print.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

You simply can't tell from a web site like this, and especially from scanned negatives. There are way too many variables which may not be equal for each scan to make any kind of comparison. And besides, its how the neg prints under enlargement/projection with any particular system that will determine how sharp or high resolution you get in the print.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree. It would be nice to read the text translated into english.

 

[gainer]

That Patrick Gainer developer recipe is one of those preserved in Ed Buffaloe's Unblinkingeye website as "Non-Chromogenic Antiscorbutic Developers for Black and White Film" and was the first thing I wrote for "Photo Techniques", then called "Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques."

 

[sanking]

quite clearly the one you prefer is hgher contrast than the other three. High contrast emphasises the edges and edges give apparent sharpness. You simply can't tell from a web site like this, and especially from scanned negatives. There are way to many variables which may not be equal for each scan to make any kind of comparison. And besides, its how the neg prints under enlargement/projection with any particular system that will determine how sharp or high resolution you get in the print.

I agree, especially the remark about scanned negatives. Unless this fellow did his scans with a drum scanner or high end flatbed it is highly unlikely he would have been able to capture the very thin adjacency effect lines that determine acutance, or micro contrast. So the comparison posted is based primarily on global/macro contrast.

Sandy

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

That Patrick Gainer developer recipe is one of those preserved in Ed Buffaloe's Unblinkingeye website as "Non-Chromogenic Antiscorbutic Developers for Black and White Film" and was the first thing I wrote for "Photo Techniques", then called "Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques."

Interesting Patrick. http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html
Paterson FX-50 was said to produce very good over all negative quality, but is now discontinued. What causes the sudden activity failure with developers like FX-50?:confused:

 

[gainer]

It could be economics. Digits that once were used for arithmetic, pointing the way to the door, and even some parts of the art of loving are now used for making pictures without developer. One does not even need a clean digit.

 

[gainer]

I should have reminded all that there is also an optical adjacency effect of human vision. While it may be due to a biochemical effect similar to what we see in developed silver images, part of the effect we see in those images may be there subjectively even if the photo we are looking at has no such white lines. In fact, I see a bit of an aura surrounding the black frame of my viewscreen against its lighter background.