Steve,
You completely mis-understood the purpose and intent of my original message, and them communicated your misuderstanding to this forum.
What I said was this: "In fact, my experince is that very few folks have any clue at all as to the way proportional stain affects the printing characteristics of different film types. And I must say we don't see much understanding of this type in View Camera. Maybe you can work on that."
Could you please explain what you find in this language that attacks the integrity of View Camea or suggests that you have a personal agenda to promote one formula over another? My criticism is objective and based on pure fact, i.e. there has never been anything published in View Camera that explains the way proportinal stain affects the printing characteristics of different films types, say a comparison of FP4+ with TMAX-100.
The only point I want to make is that T-grain films such as Tmax-100 and Tmax-400 benefit from devleopment in staining developers at least as much as traditional thick emulsion films. In any staining developer, not just Pyrocat-HD.
I appreciate the fact that you have invited me to conduct sessions at the View Camera Conference, and I hope to be able to accept your invitation for the next confernce. Further, If you are interested in a short article comparing TMAX-100 and FP4+ in a staining developer, done with good methodology, *including sensitometry* I might consider doing short piece for your magazine. Or you could have someone else do it. But I do believe it would be fairly easy to debunk the myth that TMAX-100 does not do well in staining developers.
Sandy
steve simmons said:
Where in hell
This is not the way to keep a high level professional dialogue going and I am sorry you feel the need to be vulgar and abusive.
Long before View Camera was started several of us tried and tested many of the staining developers. We tried them with the new t-grain films as well as the traditional films. We have revisited this area several times. The pyrocatechin/pyrocatechol developers were a little better in minus situations but did not appear to be as good an overall developers as the pyro-metol combinations. This was true regardless of the films.I started using the pyro formulae about 1978 and tried everything I could find. When John Wimberly created W2D2 I liked it very much and thought it was much better then the ABC formula - finer grain, easier to use, more stable, higher useable EI, etc., etc. I have been playing with these formulae since that time and have tried every formula I could find. When PMK came along I tried it and liked it very much. I have tried all of the newer formulae and have not found any reason to change. View Camera began looking at these formula more than 10 years ago, before any other magazine (except the articles I wrote for other photo magazines back in the early 80s). We've covered much of this material. If there is more/new interest we can look again.
I don't care what people use. I have not invented any of the formulae, I do not have any proprietary interest in any of them. IMHO too much effort is sometimes spent in testing, testing, testing and too little time spent making meaningful images.
I have invited Mr. King to participate in View Camera several times. That invitation is still open. If he feels we have been lax in some area I would welcome his particiaption to fill that gap.
steve simmons