As I understand it, many modern papers do incorporate tiny amounts of developer or developer-like chemicals in the emulsion. Not to allow for rapid processing, but rather as a means to help adjust sensitivity and contrast, in order to ensure batch to batch consistency of those factors.
It is allegedly the effect seen in Ilford MG IV RC. It doesn't matter the developer you put in the tray (neutral or warm tone, energetic or soft action), because you will get the same print in any case.
Just because "it" isn't mentioned doesn't mean "it" isn't there. When did consumers -- of anything -- ever get "truth in labeling". We're still working on it.
Just because "it" isn't mentioned doesn't mean "it" isn't there. When did consumers -- of anything -- ever get "truth in labeling". We're still working on it.
Perhaps, but I was responding to a post saying that a "data sheet" did say it was included - and I wondered how old that data sheet and the paper it referred to might be.
As well, see my post #26 about how trace amounts of developer-like additives are used to ensure batch to batch consistency.
I must admit that, these days, I don't really see any reason to include a developer in the emulsion anymore. Nobody who prints B&W really requires the fast pace that was required in the press darkrooms of the 60's and 70's. It's more complicated to manufacture and engineer. It can potentially make the paper less stable for long term storage when not exposed. It's an added cost to the manufacturer (more chemicals to put in the recipe).
All in all, it's one of those things that has pretty much disappeared and that I don't see coming back into popularity.
The idea of metol [and any thing as developers] in the paper emulsion comes from the use of formulas, of what is called physical development .
This was an old terminology, that I used long ago for paper enlargements, where salt and SilverNitrate was used to the paper developer as additives to enhance the gray tone with good results.
Perhaps, but I was responding to a post saying that a "data sheet" did say it was included - and I wondered how old that data sheet and the paper it referred to might be.
As well, see my post #26 about how trace amounts of developer-like additives are used to ensure batch to batch consistency.
Someone should reach out to Freestyle.
As best as I can tell, that datasheet refers to product that was manufactured by the old Kentmere, in the factory they used before Harman bought Kentmere, in 2007, closed down the Kentmere manufacturing facility, and began producing Kentmere branded products using the same production line as is used for Ilford branded products.
And that someone was me.
I sent them Freestyle an email using their contact page, suggesting that the datasheet they linked to should be checked as it appeared to reference an older version of the paper, and Freestyle responded by thanking me and saying that they have replaced that with the current link - seen here: https://www.freestylephoto.com/stat...e/Kentmere_VC_Select_Technical_Data_Sheet.pdf.