Wow, thanks for the link, Richard! I’ve read of Kenny’s work, but never seen any formulas. They look like a lot of trouble to mix up, and are certainly not Germain Fine Grain. Hope someone had tried them, but I’m nuts enough to take a whack at it sometime...
Superb shadow detail, linear mid tones and glowing highlights are fancy phrases, but a characteristic curve plot would be actually helpful. Note, that the "superb shadow detail" legend came up decades before Phenidone was universally available, and when then current film had the toe of a Triceratops.
I am sorry, you can't be right with this. "Competition is busy synthesizing unnecessary chemistry"?? Competition had a much better idea than Microdol-X in substituted o-aminophenols, for example. I think this developer was called "Orthomicrol". The reason they were killed was not necessarily economical, it could be political too. And as film emulsions changed, the chemical elegance of Microdol-X went down the drain. BTW, Haist vol 1 chapter 8 on fine-grain developing opens with the following phrase: "By far the greatest factor in the graininess problem is the character of the film emulsion itself".
What you are telling sounds interesting, perhaps you could give a published reference? Were you one of the participants? Anyway, you would agree that in a corporate structure, such as Kodak or Ilford, some people do the R&D and others make decisions as to where the company would go, and those are not necessarily always in agreement. It is pointless to see chemical or economical reasoning in this. Speaking of Haist, he reiterated the message of how important it was to go for the least toxic ingredients, as he mentioned that large numbers of untrained (in chemistry) people were entering photographic processing. So, suppose someone's developer contains p-aminophenol, p-phenylendiamine and hydroquinone, each necessary to its unique properties. This kind of composition is totally in disagreement with the low toxicity trend. However, you can also envisage some propaganda moves to discredit certain chemicals in favor of others. If you ever had a look into what women all over the world stick onto their scalp when they dye their hair, you would know what I mean. BTW, "low toxicity" does not mean you can be careless around developers containing phenidone and derivatives.
Perhaps and explanation to this consistent omission is similar to the one of K. Mees, writing in the intro to the "Theory of Photographic Process": "A book on the theory of photography should contain a chapter on emulsion-making <snip>. The author's knowledge of this subject has been acquired in confidence, however, and he is not entitled to publish the material with the frankness which alone wold justify any publication."
IMO, strictly personal, they all look like a consistent mocking of Robert Lyon patent US 2397676. I hoped that Haist would enlighten me in that respect, but the corresponding section is very terse. However, as a chemist I can say that co-crystallization of certain developing agents together (a la "meritol" or "hydramine") is only important if the product is to be sold as a powder in a bottle with a fancy name, similarly to Kodalk. Otherwise, KennyE recipes will develop film that is for sure. whether the result will be worth the effort is another problem entirely.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |
