Do halides have a silver lining?

[David Lyga]

When I was a little kid in the 50s, transistor radios began surfacing and each manufacturer touted the number of transistors as evidence of the radio's sensitivity. A few years later we hoi polloi began to realize that that transistor number was not a final determinant, per se, of the radio's value. Likewise digital: "highest megapixels" is not always the sine qua non here.

Thus, we have had, for decades, advertising touting the amount of silver in a manufacturer's B&W papers, with the inference being that superior tonality is the guaranteed result. Is the amount of precious metal in paper indicative of superior quality, at least with regard to tonal separation? Or is that 'richness' merely one determining factor: a factor that can be compromised, or, indeed, enhanced, even synergized, by other factors?

In summation, what constitutes superior tonality potentials? - David Lyga

 

[Photo Engineer]

Silver content is a fallacy when related to quality.

The way the silver develops and the shape of the H&D curve determine quality as well as does the nature of the support.

PE

 

[David Lyga]

I had a suspicion and you confirmed it, Ron. - David Lyga

 

[SchwinnParamount]

All other factors being equal, would silver content make any material difference?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I believe that this all got started some years ago when some manufacturers or their distributers began advertising their older technology films as being "silver rich."

 

[Photo Engineer]

If Dmax reaches 3.0 in film and 2.2 in paper there is absolutely no difference.

Many years ago, in the dawn of analog photography, it was necessary to coat a lot of silver to achieve these values. It was due to having dead grains in the emulsion. These grains did nothing at all and you had to coat a lot of silver to overcome them. Then, sensitization was discovered, and there were no longer dead grains.

PE

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Than you Ron!
I suspect the conversation in the "silver rich" paper boardrooms goes something like this: "Mr. Engineer, can you give me some 'bragging points' that won't cost too much to manufacture, let me tell the public that our paper has more of something, and won't damage our product?"
Mr. Engineer responds: "Sure, we can give you more silver. It will cost some dollars against profits but you'll be able to tell the public that our paper is richer in silver... but won't help the image at all".
Mr. Marketing guy: "What was that last part?"
Mr. Engineer: "Our customer won't benefit from the added silver!!"
Mr. Marketing guy: "Oh, who gives a sh * ^t about that? As long as they buy our paper, who cares?"

 

[Simon R Galley]

Ron is spot on as usual....

The 'efficient' use of silver and sensitization is much more important to product quality and performance.

We have never, and will never talk of 'silver rich' as a product benefit.

Silver price volatility means that we must endeavor to use as little as possible, recover all silver waste ( which we most certainly do* ) to control costs, and to produce a cost effective model with competitively priced film and paper products, BUT just as important is that we have a moral duty to use only as much as is needed of this precious metal.

* On tours of the factory, people seem 'amused' by the sucker units that take away the cut outs of film removed by the perforators... which are obviously taken away for silver recovery.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just keep on making film and paper,Simon.I personally don't care muchabout price as long as I still getyour quality materials.I'm still amazed that somebody can manfacture a roll of film,filled with a 100 years of research and development for a few $.How do you do it so good so cheap?but keep doing it please.