Pyro and T-grain films

I don't make a cent on Pyrocat-HD. The formula was put in the public domain and became popular by word of moutth, at first primarily in the alternative phtographic community. It made a cross-over to silver printing about three or four years ago following the introduction of kits by Formulary and Bostick and Sullivan. These folks did ask my permission to make the kits available, but strictly speaking this was a courtesy more than a necessity since the formula is, as I say, published and available for free to anyone.

Sandy

outofoptions said:

Maybe it is just me, but I took this to mean that Sandy King DID have such an interest. If so he needs to sue "Photographers Formulary" because they have the formula posted. At least they give him credit. Maybe it is just a carry over from the other thread on my part, but by repeating it, it sounds more like an accusation of bias for profit than a disclaimer IF you know Sandy is responsible for developing the Pyrocat-HD formula. I, for one, love the way the net has enabled people to share with each other and don't like seeing that undermined. I waited to post this until I verified the formula is available for free. I assume YOU knew this and didn't mean it the way I was taking it. Just a heads up I guess that your wording could be misconstrued and this has bothered me since reading it because I thought that Sandy had no "proprietary" or "financial" interest in this but was sharing it for others to use.

Click to expand...

Hi there,

If I understand this thread correctly, the testing involved to do it right would actually need a truly massive undertaking. I doubt any one person could get it done before all of the materials are withdrawn from the market.

Testing:
traditional, t-grain and blended films (35mm, 120, sheet)
traditional, staining and non-staining pyro developers
film speed, grain, resolution, stain, repeatability
changes to the H&D curves (does it form a shoulder, move the shoulder up or down, jump-up the mid-tones, ect.)
printing differences for V.C., graded, platinum, alt. process
AND MORE
(didn't Kodak do this sort of work? and go broke.)

Have fun with the hunt.

I do have a magazine that charges for people who want to read it. But to say that I have a proprietary interest in what the information is, or what the test results are, is incorrect. If I had liked HD better I would have switched in a minute. I did not so I did not..

We can debate about the amount of stain but as David Goldfarb so rightly did he asked questions along the lines of does it matter. If you are interested in making photos does it matter. pegging high and low values, trying to match film curves, etc. is really a different study. Valuable perhaps but not necessarily relevant to making photographs. Yes, deciding which print someone likes better an be a personal judgement. But so is deciding what to photograph and when.

Again. Goldfarb, as much as he and I have disagreed in the past, cut through all of our nonsense and asked the right questions.

steve simmons

Most of us here are print makers and fully undestand the difference between making prints and film testing. However, Jorge is absolutley right (and we don't agree often) in that your development tests will be invalid unless you lock in exposure and contrast. One can certainly make good prints without doing any of this, or with no knowledge of sensitometry, but if you purpose is to compare developers, not locking in exposure and contrast will give meaningless results. This is not rocket science stuff -- virtually anyone with a good undrestanding of sensitometry would find this immediatley obvious.

Again, I encourge you to look at the methodology in the Howard Bond's article in Photo Techniques for some understanding of the issues involved. Or better yet, enlist the support of one of your acquaintances with a good control of sensitometry and staining developer.

Personally I see no purpose in another test of these developers if the methodology is not improved over the tests you did seveal years ago. That article received a lot of criticim for its poor methodology, and so far as I can see, your knowledge of the issues involved has not improved. I could care less whether your prefer PMK or Pyrocat-HD. What I do care about is that if you make a comparison involving Pyrocat-HD you use sound methodology.

Sandy

steve simmons said:

I do have a magazine that charges for people who want to read it. But to say that I have a proprietary interest in what the information is, or what the test results are, is incorrect. If I had liked HD better I would have switched in a minute. I did not so I did not..

We can debate about the amount of stain but as David Goldfarb so rightly did he asked questions along the lines of does it matter. If you are interested in making photos does it matter. pegging high and low values, trying to match film curves, etc. is really a different study. Valuable perhaps but not necessarily relevant to making photographs. Yes, deciding which print someone likes better an be a personal judgement. But so is deciding what to photograph and when.

Again. Goldfarb, as much as he and I have disagreed in the past, cut through all of our nonsense and asked the right questions.

steve simmons

Click to expand...

steve simmons said:

I do have a magazine that charges for people who want to read it. But to say that I have a proprietary interest in what the information is, or what the test results are, is incorrect. If I had liked HD better I would have switched in a minute. I did not so I did not..

We can debate about the amount of stain but as David Goldfarb so rightly did he asked questions along the lines of does it matter. If you are interested in making photos does it matter. pegging high and low values, trying to match film curves, etc. is really a different study. Valuable perhaps but not necessarily relevant to making photographs. Yes, deciding which print someone likes better an be a personal judgement. But so is deciding what to photograph and when.

Again. Goldfarb, as much as he and I have disagreed in the past, cut through all of our nonsense and asked the right questions.

steve simmons

Click to expand...

Steve,

I really think that you are way out of your depth here. I certainly am not as technically astute as Sandy or Jorge. However, I am well enough informed to recognize that you don't really know what you are talking about.

I haven't bought View Camera for a good long time now. As I observe the manner in which you approach things, it leads me to believe that I won't need to buy your publication for a good while longer.

Technical knowledge is needed to have valid verifiable results from testing. Anything less is pure and simple conjecture. I really don't see where conjecture is of value to anyone.

Donald Miller

I locked in the EI for each film and developer and the dev time for placing a zone 8 tone in zone 8 on my print, Isn't that what matters? I don't care about pegging or matching curves or working with step wedges. The end goal, at least mine, is the final print. To get all balled up in the shape of the curve is another venture

For example, by fiddling and fussing around with D23 and Rodinal you can get matching curves. You will not get matching prints. What is the point? If you take the 1,000 best photos over the last 100 years - your choice - how many of them were done by sensitometric experts? Few.

Yes, I believe that staining developers give many advantages. I have seen this in my work and in the work of others. My preference is for PMK. I tested many films with ABC, the older Pyrocatechol formula, and, W2D2 and PMK in the mid 80s. I selected Tri-X and PMK and the best combination. I still like Tri-X in PMK even though the film is different then what I used 20 years ago. I have also come to like FP4+ in PMK. These are both in sheets.

steve simmons

steve simmons said:

I locked in the EI for each film and developer and the dev time for placing a zone 8 tone in zone 8 on my print, Isn't that what matters? I don't care about pegging or matching curves or working with step wedges. The end goal, at least mine, is the final print. To get all balled up in the shape of the curve is another venture

For example, by fiddling and fussing around with D23 and Rodinal you can get matching curves. You will not get matching prints. What is the point? If you take the 1,000 best photos over the last 100 years - your choice - how many of them were done by sensitometric experts? Few.

Yes, I believe that staining developers give many advantages. I have seen this in my work and in the work of others. My preference is for PMK. I tested many films with ABC, the older Pyrocatechol formula, and, W2D2 and PMK in the mid 80s. I selected Tri-X and PMK and the best combination. I still like Tri-X in PMK even though the film is different then what I used 20 years ago. I have also come to like FP4+ in PMK. These are both in sheets.

steve simmons

Click to expand...

How pray tell did you "lock" the EI for each film without doing any sensitometry? Are you aware that EI and the curve are intimately related. That a film that you supposedly developed for Zone VIII with one EI would have a different EI if the contrast range of your subject is greater or smaller than normal?

You see, your limited understanding of sensitometry is the problem. You might be able to make good pictures, but understanding of sensitometry allows you to make good pictures and understand why they are comming out ok.

Now as to your 1000 pictures challange, if we do this from the 1950s and up you will find that many of those pictures were made by photographers with at least a comfortable understanding of the zone system and the basics of sensitometry.....can you say group f64?

As I see it, like a petulant child, you refuse to see when you are wrong and acknowledge the fact. I dont think anybody here is saying that we insist on pyrocat being better. If someone with thorough understanding of sensitometry does the test, and the test results say that X developer is better, and backs it up with a well controlled experiment, then we all would like to read this. But your way is just plain dumb. I assure you, many of us here can make just as good prints as you can, saying that one developer is better because you can make better prints with it is simply a biased opinion with no fundation.

In the end, there must be a reason why many of us who understand sensitometry choose pyrocat as the better developer. More versatile, better lasting, cheap, and consitent. Not to mention the fact that it can be used in rotary developing, tray development, etc, without many of the problem that PMK and the others have or without having to make a speical fomulation.

BTW, the last senitometry test I made was when I got my Jobo about 6 months ago, previous to that I had gone 2 years without making a tests, like you I preffer to make pictures than being on the DR making tests. The difference is that I know my results will be consistent and I can communicate these results to other people who understand my methodology. Your way, we have to take your word for it.....and that is something I am not about to accept.

outofoptions posted in an above post... " I have seen enough of Sandy's posts to know that he is a meticulous worker. By posting his results he is fair game for peer review."

I have no quarrel with this statement, but I do not consider Steve to be a peer, as he lacks the background in sensitometry to do these simple tests. In short, he lacks the skills needed. The problem I would have with Steve doing a test of print values (done by his testing methods) is simply that it is impossible to get true contrast matches by using any method other than a densitometer, especially if a variable contrast paper is being used and stain colors vary. To try to match a contrast of one film and staining developer against the same film and a different staining developer is absurd without the right test equipment. The suggestion of an impartial test and blind data review is the only one I would care to read. To say that a zone 8 value is a zone 8 value, when there are very subtle differences in stain, shows a lack of understanding of the basic problem.

I have the utmost respect for Jorge, Sandy and Donald when it comes to film testing. These are folks who have spent a great deal of time and effort in carefully matching development technique to paper scale. Due to Steve's animosity and bias against Sandy and his statements, I would not accept his results as anything other than tainted. A true test would be a double-blind study and peer review by people of integrity, without an ax to grind. tim

Here is how I test. I find the necessary exposure with each film and developer combination to get a zone 1 density that is enough to separate that tone from pure paper black. I use a grade 2 paper or filter. This 'necessary 'exposure results in a zone 1 density about .1 above film base plus fog. This is a very standard result. I then find a zone 8 density in the scene and expose it at my tested ei. I then find the dev time needed to get a zone 8 tone (just below pure paper white) on my print. This density is usually around 1.3-1.35. This is also an accepted result. How do I know these are standard results, Becasue when I did all of my testing 25 years ago these were the densities i got. It is not necesasary to use a densitometer to get these results. When you do you end up at the same place.
The tests I did were normal scenes exposed and developed normally. The same scene in each test treated properly for that film and developer. They were then proofed on the same paper and paper grade/filter.

steve simmons

Steve,

I am not denying that you can work the way that you describe. But to represent that this is valid testing is missing the boat by a country mile.

To say that the last time that you tested was twenty five years ago and then you admit that TriX is a different film today makes me wonder about your methodology especially when you indicate that you are evaluating prints by eyeballing tonal values.

What have you done to determine the exposure scale of the paper? How are you sure that the exposure scale of the paper has remained the same over the past twenty five years?

You seem to fail to recognize that the EI of the film is dependent on the development that the fim receives.

As I said earlier, it is apparent to me that you are way out of your depth. Anything that you propose to do and publish is invalid based upon what you have said to this point.

That is not to say that you can't learn how to do the work. I am just saying that you are not doing it now.

I periodically recheck the densities with a densitometer. When the new version of Tri-X came out I retested to get the ei and dev time for the zone 8 densities- they were different than the just replaced Tri-X.. When I said I tested 25 years ago I mean that I ran hundreds of graphs to learn how film, exposure, and development time all interact to create and change the shape of the curve. The principles are the same now as 35 years ago. When Michael Smith looked at my images in the exhibit here in Abq at the time of the first large format conference he came up to me and said they looked like a black and white print is supposed to look. If I did not understand how exposure, dev time, etc, all work I could not get such a result. I developed this understanding partly by testing and graphing but also by years of experience. When I have described this process, and in some cases shown them, in workshops that are amazed that this empirical testing can be as easy as it is. The fact it you get to the same place with a densitomers and by empirically testing providing you hold such things as the film, film developer, and printing paper constant.

steve simmons



steve simmons

steve simmons said:

Here is how I test. I find the necessary exposure with each film and developer combination to get a zone 1 density that is enough to separate that tone from pure paper black. I use a grade 2 paper or filter. This 'necessary 'exposure results in a zone 1 density about .1 above film base plus fog. This is a very standard result. I then find a zone 8 density in the scene and expose it at my tested ei. I then find the dev time needed to get a zone 8 tone (just below pure paper white) on my print. This density is usually around 1.3-1.35. This is also an accepted result. How do I know these are standard results, Becasue when I did all of my testing 25 years ago these were the densities i got. It is not necesasary to use a densitometer to get these results. When you do you end up at the same place.
The tests I did were normal scenes exposed and developed normally. The same scene in each test treated properly for that film and developer. They were then proofed on the same paper and paper grade/filter.

steve simmons

Click to expand...

Your test is very rudimentary and has many flaws. As I read it, you are doing the Picker "minimum printing time for maximum black" which has many flaws. It is an ok methodology to get a ball park figure but it is not by any means a way to conduct a controlled test.

Lets start with your "evaluation" of the "maximum" black. We all know that black "depthness" is related to the paper grade, so if you use paper that has different batch number you might be invalidating your tests right out of the start line. But lest suppose ( and this is a big suppository) that there is no problem with the paper and to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are using graded paper from the same batch. It is impossible for you to evaluate a difference between 0.09, 0.1,0.14, 0.17, values in a negative by diferentiating the first black step in a print. These values when used sensitometrically can give you very different EIs. As I said, you are eye balling your tests. It is no surprise that when you last tested Pyrocat you gave it a rating of half the film speed which flies against the experience not only of the creator of the developer but all of us who use it. As you can see, you are not as good at evaluating the first black step as you think you are.

But lets say you have eagle eyes and you can really judge these diferences. You now develop the film to have detail on zone VIII. This developing time/EI combination is only valid for the same contrast range of your subject. The moment you have a different light situation and you have to either give more or less development, your initial testing for EI is invalid....why? Because with different development times your EI has now changed.

Furthermore, your assumption that zone VIII must be 1.35 because that was the value you obtained 25 years ago testing with the papers at that time is just wrong. I can assure you that current papers do not have an exposure scale of 1.25 (1.35-0.1) excluding azo, present papers have an exposure scale of 1.1 at the most, where your Zone VIII should be at around 1.25 ( You see now the importance of being able to differentiate between 0.9 and 1.9 units)

It is no surprise you like PMK better, given the higher general stain what you are actually doing is moving all the values up the curve. Once again it is no surprise you did not like Pyrocat HD. Pyrocat HD is a much "cleaner" developer with almost no general stain. This is another reason why you rated Pyrocat as giving half the film speed, you needed to move up the values on the curve to compensate for the general stain you are used to with PMK. What you should have done with pyrocat was to develop less, but then this would not have helped you since you are using tones that are unable to be acomodated by any present paper unless you use a developer that results in greater general stain and you evaluate a correct EI.

So you see Mr. Simmons, understanding of sensitometry is not only about making curves. It allows you to understand why a film/developer combination is behaving the way it is and what are the reasons for this behavior. I can tell you with a 100% certainty that if this the way you plan to do your tests once more, that all of your results will be valid only for you and will be unable to be replicated by anyone else. This is not the way testing should be done, if you call your magazine a "Journal" you should be aware of these issues and understand them. Something that you clearly dont.

sanking said:

In my tests using the Air Force resolution chart I have been able to consistently get close to 80 lpmm with TMAX-100, and rarely as much as 65 lpmm with FP4+.

Click to expand...

Sandy - are you using the Edmunds wall chart that one photographs through the camera lens? If have recently gained access to the chrome on glass slide USAF resolution charts and I've only played a couple of times with them, but the last time I did I was able to get about 80 line pairs/mm with Fuji Acros in Xtol 1:1. (Target 6-4) I think I can do better with a little refinement in technique. Fuji says 60 lp/mm at low contrast and 200 lp/mm high contrast.

I haven't tried 100TMX yet or PMK...

Kirk

outofoptions said:

I'd vote for PE but he probably wants no part of this. Probably just got myself added to his 'block' list.

Click to expand...

Good suggestion, but I happen know that he already has a full plate at this time! And you know, I would be really surprised if he had a "block" list.

Kirk Keyes said:

Sandy - are you using the Edmunds wall chart that one photographs through the camera lens? If have recently gained access to the chrome on glass slide USAF resolution charts and I've only played a couple of times with them, but the last time I did I was able to get about 80 line pairs/mm with Fuji Acros in Xtol 1:1. (Target 6-4) I think I can do better with a little refinement in technique. Fuji says 60 lp/mm at low contrast and 200 lp/mm high contrast.

I haven't tried 100TMX yet or PMK...

Kirk

Click to expand...

Kirk,

Yes, for testing of system resolution I use the Edmunds Air Force 83,001 wall chart. By system I mean everthing in the chain, including film, camera lens, aperture, etc. I use the camera on a tripod, of course, and take care to center it on the target. In this situation one can not always be sure what the weak link is, but it does give you a fairly good idea of the best you could hope for in real field work. About the best I have been able to do with any camera lens system has been a bit over 80 lppm with a Fuji GW690 camera and the 90mm Fujinon EBC lens and TMAX-100 films

The chrome on glass and contact printing would certainly be a better test if film resolution itself is what you are interested in testing.

Sandy

My test scores of .1 above film base plus fog and 1.3-1.35 for zone 8 have held true for the last 25 years. As I stated above I have periodically rechecked these values - for exampe when the newer version of Tri-X came out about 2-3 years ago. It was different in that its ei went up but so did the necessary dev time.These are the densities Ansel suggested in his books. Yes, I know ei changes with plus and minus sutuations. That is why I tested the two developers in a normal scene with normal development. No variation.

My comments about my not having any proprietary or financial interest in any developer were not just directed at Sandy but also Gordon Hutchings. It is basic practice in any scientific validation not to have the creator do the final testig but an outside disinterested party. Since I do not have any direct connection to either formula, and since I have been working with pyro developers since 1978 when I first started writing articles for magazines I have a lot of experience with staining developers. If I did not know how to handle them, and get the right densities on my film I would not get the print values Michael Smith complimented me on here in ABQ three years ago. I do not shoot multiple negs, bracket their exposures and then vary the dev hoping to get a good one. I shoot one neg, process it according to my tests and years of experience. The prints Michael liked were straight contact prints at my proper proof time. Except for minimal edge burning they were not manipuated at all.

To dismiss me as being in over my head, not understanding densitometry, etc. is to fly in the face of my testing, exhibition, writing and publishing career which is now going on almost 30 years - much longer than View Camera has been around.

steve simmons

Further clarification.

My densities of 1.3-1.35 are obtained by reading my zone 8 negs with the blue scale of a color densitometer. This has become the accepted practice with staining developers. Using a staining developer, in my case PMK for the last 20+ yearts, has allowed me to get good tonal separation up to Zone 8. This was harder for me to do with a non staining developer. This is why zones 3-8 are my normal range for good detail and texture.

There are legitimate different ways of testing. One can test as Jorge is suggesting but after a certain basic level of understanding is obtained one must photograph in the real world. Beyond that basic level of understanding further testing becomes an activity other than making photographs. It becomes an advanced study of sensitometry. This is certainly a valuable thing to do but it is no longer about making photographs. First and formost View Camera magazine is about making photographs. We have shown hundreds of the best photographrs over the last 17 years. Very few of them have done more testing and drawn curves beyond simply understaning how to make the photograhs they want to make. This is what View Camera is about.

View Camera began running articles about stainng developers back in the early 90s before any magazine at that time would touch the subject. Before that the next most recent artices in any US magazine (I can't necessariy say about overseas magazines) was an article I did about 1980 in Photophile and John Wimberly's piece, I think in Petersens Photographic, about 1978. When I did the Photophile piece I ran charts and graphs on 2-3 staining developers and developed an understanding on how they, and standard developers worked, how to manipulate the film curves to print on my normal grade/filter of paper.

We can run more articles about staining developers. But as I would not ask Gordon Hutchings to evaluate them because there could be outcries of bias, I could not ask Sandy for the same reason.


steve simmons

There are legitimate different ways of testing. One can test as Jorge is suggesting but after a certain basic level of understanding is obtained one must photograph in the real world. Beyond that basic level of understanding further testing becomes an activity other than making photographs. It becomes an advanced study of sensitometry. This is certainly a valuable thing to do but it is no longer about making photographs. First and formost View Camera magazine is about making photographs. We have shown hundreds of the best photographrs over the last 17 years. Very few of them have done more testing and drawn curves beyond simply understaning how to make the photograhs they want to make. This is what View Camera is about.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. This is why discussing anything with you becomes an exercise in futility. You refuse to read what is posted and instead fall back on fallacious arguments. Do you really think that those of us who use a controlled methodology spend all our time just making tests? If you are this dumb and do think this way let me set you straight. You are mistaken! I dont know about King but the only reason I use a controlled methodology is so that I have to do it only once and then given the same variables are maintained constant I can get the exact same results over and over. Seems to me you spend more time testing your results than I do. Apparently you have no confidence in your methodology and continue to "verify" your results.

In any case, it is very dissappointing to see that the editor of a so called "Journal" of photography is so ignorant of the science part of photography. It is really sad when you have to fall back on "well Michael Smith told me" or " I have been making photographs for 30 years" to refute arguments where sensitometry points have been presented to you. As King said, you dont need sensitometry to make good pictures, but you do need it to understand film behavior and be able to compare between them.

Just to get back on topic, you said Tmx 100 does not stain well in staining developers. King provided you with irrefutable numbers that Tmx 100 does stain very well. Since you could not admit you were wrong and provide numbers to dispute his, you once again fell back on tired and worn argument that you "make photograph" as if you were the only one who does...

I am done with you, in the end it is your magazine and you can publish in it whatever you want. But let me tell you, if you print the article and test the way you have described here you are going to be the laughing stock of the photographic community, at least from those of us who know how to make these tests.

You have to relate the densities in the negative to the manner of final presentation - the print and the paper you are printing on. This is my point. You wrote an article for View Camera a year or so ago. Given the quality of that article it is clear that you do not understand anything about the craft of photography. The text was full of holes and at times incoherent, the photographs were atrocious, and the six people who reviewed it for me, all independantly said I should never publish this as it was not worthy of the publication.

I will stand on my record. It is far deeper, broader and more extensive than anything you have ever done.

I will do the article and let people make up their own minds.

steve simmons

Gentlemen;

If you wish to continue this "discussion" please take it outside APUG.

Further posts in the same vein will be deleted.

steve simmons said:

You have to relate the densities in the negative to the manner of final presentation - the print and the paper you are printing on. This is my point. You wrote an article for View Camera a year or so ago. Given the quality of that article it is clear that you do not understand anything about the craft of photography. The text was full of holes and at times incoherent, the photographs were atrocious, and the six people who reviewed it for me, all independantly said I should never publish this as it was not worthy of the publication.

I will stand on my record. It is far deeper, broader and more extensive than anything you have ever done.

I will do the article and let people make up their own minds.

steve simmons

Click to expand...

Yes you have to relate the densities, but not to the "manner of presentation" but to the paper scale. See, you dont even know to use the correct terms.

As to the article, it is not my fault you could not understand it or your so called friends, but then I am not surprised. In the end my posts and reasons why I think your methodlogy is laughable are here for all to see, they can make a judgement about who knows what he is talking about and who does not.

As to the pictures, yes they were not good pictures. This was intentional to show un-manipulated pictures where the printing was done at the same printing time for all the developer/film combinations. Once again, something you cannot understand. The idea is not to make a good print, it is to make a print that shows how the film behaves in print given developing to a chosen gradient. But then, you refuse to acknowledge this in your ignorance of methodological testing.

Now if you want to make this a personal issue, I will gladly put any of my presentation silver prints or my pt/pd prints against any of yours, I hope you show up at the APUG conference so I can show you how mistaken you are.

Ole said:

Gentlemen;

If you wish to continue this "discussion" please take it outside APUG.

Further posts in the same vein will be deleted.

Click to expand...

This has been a civilized discussion, you have no reason to delete any posts. If you delete any of mine you might as well scratch me off of the APUG list and conference, I wont stand for this kind of moderation.

Steve,

I concur with Jorge. If you write another article based upon what you have represented here it will be disregarded by many if not most who know anything about establishing valid parameters for their process.

Jorge makes very valid points. One of the problems is that you rely on out dated and obsolete methodology. Have you tested any of the current papers to determine what their exposure scale is? Have you tested the dmax and dmin of any of the current papers to see whether your visual appraisal is valid? In other words, paraphrasing an old TV ad, "Show me the beef".

Irregardless, View Camera is your publication. As I have said before your current attitude leads me to question anything that you represent as being factual.

Ole said:

Gentlemen;

If you wish to continue this "discussion" please take it outside APUG.

Further posts in the same vein will be deleted.

Click to expand...

Ole,

You are getting overly heavy handed here. My suggestion is to back off, take a deep breath, grab a cup of coffee, and chill out. I agree with Jorge.

As I have said several times I periodically recheck my ei and dev times. I do this with current papers and current films. When tri-X changed about 2 years ago I rechecked and found it had a higher ei and also required a longer dev time for zone 8. The empirical tests I do always agree with the densitometer checks I make. You can get to the same place either way. There should not be this disagreement.

steve simmons