One can short of a six pack?

shadesofgrey · Aug 27, 2005

Evening all. Paterson Universal developer. Anyone use/played with it? Asking because...1 I don't know anything about it. And...2 Today I stood next to a guy in our local camera store who did nothing but sing its praise to the rather bemused (or should that read...confused) shop assistant.

"Great stuff! Half the price of Rodinal, goes just as far and lasts an age! Plus! No messing about mixing that archaic powder rubbish!" He said rather profoundly. Was he right? Or just right off his trolly?

Answers on a post card please...or here if it's more convenient.

Take care

B.

MikeS · Aug 27, 2005

shadesofgrey said:
"Great stuff! Half the price of Rodinal, goes just as far and lasts an age! Plus! No messing about mixing that archaic powder rubbish!" He said rather profoundly. Was he right? Or just right off his trolly?

I don't know anything about the developer in question, but I do know that Rodinal is NOT a powder, so I think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

-Mike

Paul Sorensen · Aug 27, 2005

Hang around a camera shop long enough and you will run into this person. These are the same interesting folks who love to chat with the clerks about how Nikon is trash, or perhaps Canon is trash, or mayby that 6MP dig slrs make better prints than LF. I am certain that Paterson Universal developer can be used to make good photos, but then so can Folgers. I automatically take anything from that kind of person with a grain of salt. There is no such thing as a perfect product for every possible use.

Of course, I haven't used it so I guess he could be right, this is the perfect developer we have all been waiting for!

Paul Sorensen · Aug 27, 2005

Here is what Paterson has to say. They ought to hire this guy since he is way more enthusiastic than they are about their own product.

Paterson Universal

Universal developer is suitable for both films and papers and can be very economical for beginners or those on a budget.

Negatives developed in Universal will be crisp in detail, bright in contrast and with low fog level. They print easily to show a wide range of tones with a neutral image colour. At 1+4 dilution it is also useful as a high contrast developer for copying or other special darkroom effects on film or paper.

gnashings · Aug 28, 2005

Paul Sorensen said:
...I automatically take anything from that kind of person with a grain of salt...

Those are words of wisdom - very, very true! We all see that guy in any hobby/profession, he's always around somewhere...

dancqu · Aug 28, 2005

shadesofgrey said:
Paterson Universal developer. ...
Asking because...1 I don't know anything about it.

Likely of the FX-1/Beutler type film developers. Those two
are very similar to Ansco 120 and Beer's A print developers.

Those four developers contain no more than metol, sulfite,
carbonate, and a bit of bromide or iodide. The last two
I consider optional depending on the film or paper.

Whatever is in Paterson's brew it is almost certain of
the type I've mentioned. Those four are very active
developers. Usually they are used more dilute with
films then with paper. Dan

joeyk49 · Aug 28, 2005

I'm curious as to why you would need different dev times for the same type emulsion??? Would the developer work on the film at the same rate? I would think that a larger format film of the same type would simply use more chemical, but not at a faster or slower rate....

Can someone enlighten me?

colrehogan · Aug 28, 2005

MikeS said:
I don't know anything about the developer in question, but I do know that Rodinal is NOT a powder, so I think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

-Mike

I thought that the developer in question was being described as something that did not have to be mixed up like an "archaic powder" and also that the developer in question was half the price of Rodinal. I did chuckle at the archaic powder bit though. Funny what some people will say.

One can short of a six pack?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency