Highest Resolution Fine Grain Developer

[Sidd]

It's fascinating that a person started a conversation almost twenty years ago, the same person is not seen on the forum for almost last fourteen years, but the discussion he initiated is felt to be valid even today! I have seen this to happen only here. Great to be the part of this community.

 

[brbo]

It's fascinating that a person started a conversation almost twenty years ago, the same person is not seen on the forum for almost last fourteen years, but the discussion he initiated is felt to be valid even today! I have seen this to happen only here. Great to be the part of this community.

But it's very very rare today, even here. Or especially here.

If you hang around a bit you will notice that people ask the same questions all the time. Granted, the search on this site is really not the best, but I'd bet that 95% of people posting new threads with questions never do a search on topic prior to posting. Consequently, less and less people bother to answer or present their views on the questions that have been dealt with hundreds of times (there is only so much change in the world of analogue photography). Mods also seem to not have the issue with such behaviour and more often than not, people mock others when old threads are brought from the dead, saying that you should've opened a new thread. With identical question.

Crazy.

 

[MattKing]

The moderation team will merge old threads with new ones, when it seems appropriate.
If you see a good example, Report the new one and share the link to the old one in the Report, so we can consider it.
On a thread like this, due to changes in product availability, twenty year old information can benefit from updates.
Personally, what I find most challenging, is when I see a new thread on something, and I have a vague memory of there being a similar one from several years ago - but I can't find it!

 

[xkaes]

It's fascinating that a person started a conversation almost twenty years ago, the same person is not seen on the forum for almost last fourteen years, but the discussion he initiated is felt to be valid even today! I have seen this to happen only here. Great to be the part of this community.

It happens on every Forum I've ever seen -- new people asking the old questions. "What are the best tires for my jalopy?" ETC. We are no different.

 

[Sidd]

It happens on every Forum I've ever seen -- new people asking the old questions. "What are the best tires for my jalopy?" ETC. We are no different.

You must consider that newer people are getting into film photography and this forum who earlier knew next to nothing on the subject.

 

[pentaxuser]

He says he doesn't see much difference, but note at 6:15, there is a conspicuous difference in the amount of shadow information in the 1:3 print VS the Stock print. I don't know how much of this is due to his approach to making the prints (adjusted contrast?) but there is a very obvious difference. If that difference is entirely due to choosing a 1:3 dilution, then I think that's noteworthy.

Well I think that his point was that he didn't see much difference when looking at normal viewing distance at the two 12 x16 prints and he postulated that most others that are his audience might think likewise and I tend to agree with him

However the point I was trying to make was in response to a comment that 1+3 was impractical and here was evidence 1+3 was far from impractical.

My next comment is admittedly "off topic" to an extent but the video presenter has the knack/gift of appealing to the "man in the street" who like him is learning analogue photography. He has, in this way, gathered thousands of followers and so I feel he must have the gift of being able to see things in a very similar way to the so-called "man in the street" so when he says he can't see "much" difference then this accords with what his followers see


pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

Well I think that his point was that he didn't see much difference when looking at normal viewing distance at the two 12 x16 prints and he postulated that most others that are his audience might think likewise and I tend to agree with him

However the point I was trying to make was in response to a comment that 1+3 was impractical and here was evidence 1+3 was far from impractical.

My next comment is admittedly "off topic" to an extent but the video presenter has the knack/gift of appealing to the "man in the street" who like him is learning analogue photography. He has, in this way, gathered thousands of followers and so I feel he must have the gift of being able to see things in a very similar way to the so-called "man in the street" so when he says he can't see "much" difference then this accords with what his followers see


pentaxuser

It seems to me that if an educator - and that is the role he's taken on - has an obligation to expand the knowledge of their "students", not just hand them 101 content all the time, skipping over important details and overlooking something as obvious and meaningful as shadow detail preservation. Engineering your material to appeal to "the man in the street" is great, but don't leave him in the street - show him the way to a great skill set.

I don't think its asking too much for someone like "shoot film like a boss" to include more detailed analysis of their experiments and not just leave their audience in "I don't see much difference" territory. Format it as "if you want more detailed technical analysis, there's additional information in the last 5 minutes of this video" or some such. But hey, it's not my channel, so I don't get to make those decisions.

 

[MattKing]

The most important risk factor with higher dilutions of many film developers is the potential of inadvertently using too little stock, leading to problems with developer exhaustion. Particularly when employing rotary agitation.