That’s been my experience as well. The batch that mixes up to look like what you see in a coffee cone while you pour water in your morning brew is actually usable.
Believe it or not. I haven’t proven it objectively but I am not afraid to use it. I was worried it would stain the prints, which would be a deal-breaker. But I didn’t notice a stain.
Email them to yourself, and then re-size them in a photo editor before uploading them. 1000 pixels on the long side and a jpeg with quality "80" works easily, although you can squeeze a bit bigger if you need to.
Thank you Bill and Matt. I suspected that the dark stuff was staining, but it was my safelight fogging things. If I had been in the darkroom regularly for the past few years, I would have given the weird Dektol more of a chance. As a "newbie," it added one more variable to the re-learning curve.
Thank you Bill and Matt. I suspected that the dark stuff was staining, but it was my safelight fogging things. If I had been in the darkroom regularly for the past few years, I would have given the weird Dektol more of a chance. As a "newbie," it added one more variable to the re-learning curve.
Wow good timing MattKing with the resource. I’ll find the siamese cat somewhere and add. It’s really just “the” image Kodak used in earlier texts of the safelight test that illustrates how a bad safelight can ruin a print. Siamese cat and shiny chrome plates still life.