silver rich

First let me apologize to Clay for coming on so strong. My stand on densimeters goes back to last spring when we were discussing them in many many threads. But this thread was not started about densimeters or staining developers as it has been calimed I did it for.

Next let me quote myself:

Aggie said:

Since this term was blasted as not being valid and not to be found or heard of, I searched for the term on the web where I had first encountered it. Well last night when I was reading Steve Anchells "Darkroom Cookbook" I came across it again. PG. 79 half way down the page, where in big black letters it says NOTE you will find it in the next paragraph talking about old emulsions. Though this was in reference to paper, it also has been used in other publications (given time I will find them) that yes silver rich as a term, deals with old emulsion films too. Probably in the same book!

Click to expand...

Again as in the second post in this thread did I mention at any time who, or where? I belong to three different on line photography forums. I also tend to hang out off the net with photographers. some of those same photographers are on this forum. Next if I felt the need to answer one person in another thread, I am sure that my history on this site will speak for itself. I would not have hesitated to have answered that other thread right then and on that thread itself! I am not what you call shy or retiring in my opinions. So to take this thread that was just AGAIN VERIFYING THE TERM EXISTS and making it into a vendetta like thing is absurd. Did I mention staining developers in THIS thread? Did I mention any names or try to pull any other person directly into this thread as being party to some other thread? NOOOO!!!!!!!! I do take issue to the way that this has disuintegrated from the original start of THIS thread to one that has nothing to do with what I said. No one knows what I think unless I say it specifically!

Jorge you did well In the most adult response to bring it back to a more sane outlook. As for being caught in a crossfire of another discussion? well that other discussion was not here until it got distorted. This thread was simply a thread to say yes the term exists and is out there in pulbications.

no one wins the toenail clippers!

Now if you all will exucse me, I refuse to have my name further used to make it look like I was saying or doing something I did not do. It's been well over 30 years since I was in Jr. High and around this kind of discussion.

Sounds like a good first article for the new magazine...

Aggie,
While this last post of yours has been a most eloquent statement of your position. I would appreciate, for the standpoint of a further peaceful relationship in this forum, if you would care to elaborate on the basis of your original post to this thread.

I have taken the liberty of copying and posting that post below. Since you made allegations of certain actions and words/statements made in your original post, I would really appreciate it if you would give me/us a place that we can look for that this supposed blasting and statement(s) were made. Had you not broached the subject yourself I would not be asking for a further explanation. I think that this is fair in the interest of maintaining a peaceful and coexistant community. Fair enough?

Initial post

"Since this term was blasted as not being valid and not to be found or heard of, I searched for the term on the web where I had first encountered it. Well last night when I was reading Steve Anchells "Darkroom Cookbook" I came across it again. PG. 79 half way down the page, where in big black letters it says NOTE you will find it in the next paragraph talking about old emulsions. Though this was in reference to paper, it also has been used in other publications (given time I will find them) that yes silver rich as a term, deals with old emulsion films too. Probably in the same book!"[/b]

Aggies response to responses to initial post

To discount it out of hand and to say from the orginal thread that it does not exist and is a made up term, was reason for saying yes this term does exist.

Such passion!

Did, uh...did anyone else besides me make any photographs today? I decided to indulge my passion in an all-Agfa afternoon: Agfa Isolette V (so-called "Jsolette" model); Agfa APX 400 film; and in a little while I'll soup it in Rodinal.

Because it was an overcast afternoon and I want bristling contrast I'll going for 50% longer than normal development. The entire roll is of the new Fort Worth Modern Art Museum, a marvellous structure, so the contrast will suit the subject.

Say, how much silver is in APX 400 anyway...?

Back to the silver-rich debate...

Has anyone here had an opportunity to try the various films rumored to be silver rich in a wide variety of old style developers? For example, anyone tried their last batch of Super XX in 777?

My point is, perhaps behind the original claims for these films decades ago is more than emulsion. It might be equal parts film, mysterious proprietary developer and a technique known only to initiates to the black arts.

Let's assume the possibility that the answer to the silver rich challenge is akin to Belbo's riddle in "Foucault's Pendulum": Do you have the password?

Aggie,
While this last post of yours has been a most eloquent statement of your position. I would appreciate, for the standpoint of a further peaceful relationship in this forum, if you would care to elaborate on the basis of your original post to this thread.

I have taken the liberty of copying and posting that post below. Since you made allegations of certain actions and words/statements made in your original post, I would really appreciate it if you would give me/us a place that we can look for that this supposed blasting and statement(s) were made. Had you not broached the subject yourself I would not be asking for a further explanation. I think that this is fair in the interest of maintaining a peaceful and coexistant community. Fair enough?

Click to expand...

Since this seems to be a directed question just to me, not from an us but you Don let me go through this again. We are going on a journey now of personal history.

Wayback machine set for fall of 1973:
My first class as a Junior in college (reference must name the college) Sothern Utah State College (now Southern Utah University must keep these facts straight, but I probably will be asked to verify that I went there with transcripts) In a beginning photography class Oh must name a teacher since this is inoccous enough I will name him by name, Professor Rowley told us (this meaning the full class that was in attendance at that time period in that city in that state) of silver rich films. I had no knowledge of most things photographic before taking that class other than an instamatic.

Next jump through history. got married, had child, was able to between children afford a medium format camera. 1983 purchased a mamiya 645. do not know what time of year precisely. Sales person was the first one to tell me there were no silver rich films. This place was "Samy's Camera in LA" I thought no more of it.

Fast forward again. 1990 Tucson Az. Purchsed a few items for my canon f1n again was in discussion about films and the new ones available. I watched as two sales clerks got into fight about silver rich films.

fast forward to present. I had to go back and find the other post directly after starting this thread to see exactly why Don had thought I had singled out what he had said. Nope not the item I talked about. For those who attend the presnt little college I take photography classes at< they will recognize exactly who it was that blasted me in the department. All I have to say is daytime. Anyone who goes to that college and several are here and post regulary, know exactly whom I speak of. It is also know the history of the way that individual talks to me. Since this is not an issue that needs further clarification on this forum with that person name, I will not mention it further.

So Don NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and I can type that more times if need be, it is not in reference to that other thread that I started this thread.

Aggies response to responses to initial post

To discount it out of hand and to say from the orginal thread that it does not exist and is a made up term, was reason for saying yes this term does exist.

Click to expand...

now for the above mentioned bit. That came later in this series of posts did it not? I guess everyone who reads this can look over the cronology of what posts came when. By this time that other thread had been drug into this mess that it has become. Yeah by this time I did reference back to the other thread

Let me reference back to still another thread since that is what is becoming the issue here. One that I stumbled upon while trying to find the one Don is so obbsessed about. MikeK sorry about not responding, I did not feel it a major issue that I had to respond in that thread. I have since found the full text of what Gordon Hutchings puts in his jobo to make PMK work better. It was not just metaborate, it was sodium metaborate. If you need the book that this info came out of, it is "The Book Of Pyro" I was remiss in not responding to that when you brought about a differeing view in another thread. I hope going back I do not find more that I did not respond too. My fingers are getting tired.

Nest Lex, yeah I did take a few shots today. Didn't do any developing. If you want to see what a shot with a supposed old emulsion film looks like, go to the non picture gallery and it is the last page. the picture entitled oblivious in Yosemite. that one was shot with forte 200 and developed in PMK. straight un fiddled with scan of the negative. But opps looking back at that I was also asked back then what film and such by someone (darn forgot who already) and I forgot to respond to that thread also. Isn't getting older a bitch?

Now lastly I have a question straight for Don, no couching it with me/us. I want to know, why you feel the need to turn what was a peaceful discussion that had started about emulsions and a simple term into something you veiwed and like a pit bull could not let go of as being directed soley at what you said in another thread? Is there some hidden agenda I should know about? I have stated several times I did not say who or where. I alluded to three different web sites. to which you demanded then the url. But I also eluded to having a life outside of the web to which I associate with photographers. What is the real reason you did this?

And as I have told Don recently in email (not about this darn thread or even the other one) I will not have anything more to do with you. I since blocked his address from my mail account. and just delete any PM's I receive here. If this doesn't put a stop directly to it Don, Happy fighting, with yourself. But be fair to others, now require all people to have to site every last bit of information you do not agree with. Make all have to give url's and other info to back up every last little infatesimal thing. Be fair! to all!

Sean do we have an ignore ability on this forum? Maybe that could be implemented.

BTW, the answer to Belbo's riddle: Do you have the password?

The answer? "No."

Personally, I think Eco may have cribbed a bit from Tolkien (recall Frodo's solution to the password needed to enter the mountains, which the great Gandalf could not solve).

The point is that sometimes we may be a wee bit too smart for our own good when it comes to solving riddles.

Here we are, sharpening sticks amongst ourselves rather than going straight to the source and asking, say, Kodak to finally spill. Out with it, Rochester: What's the diff between films? Where does the silver halide end and the iodide and sensitizing dyes begin?

Oh, I forgot...Kodak is all ones and zeroes these days.

Now lastly I have a question straight for Don, no couching it with me/us. I want to know, why you feel the need to turn what was a peaceful discussion that had started about emulsions and a simple term into something you veiwed and like a pit bull could not let go of as being directed soley at what you said in another thread? Is there some hidden agenda I should know about? I have stated several times I did not say who or where. I alluded to three different web sites. to which you demanded then the url. But I also eluded to having a life outside of the web to which I associate with photographers. What is the real reason you did this?

And as I have told Don recently in email (not about this darn thread or even the other one) I will not have anything more to do with you. I since blocked his address from my mail account. and just delete any PM's I receive here. If this doesn't put a stop directly to it Don, Happy fighting, with yourself. But be fair to others, now require all people to have to site every last bit of information you do not agree with. Make all have to give url's and other info to back up every last little infatesimal thing. Be fair! to all!

Sean do we have an ignore ability on this forum? Maybe that could be implemented.
_________________
When life leaves you lemons, make stop bath, and save money.

Aggie,

Thank you for replying to my questions. I recognize that you posted questions to me and I will repond to those in a factual and truthful basis.
The reason that I thought that you began this thread on "Silver Rich" as a furtherance of the discussion from an earlier thread is as follows: In the earlier thread you made a comment about silver rich films staining better in PMK developer. I responded with a reply to your comment that indicated the basis of two types of stain and the indications by densitometric tests that "silver rich" films "whatever that is" did not seem to be the basis for that ability. As I recall Sandy King then weighed in with his opinion that the gelatin was the componant of the film that was stained and that heavier general stain was more a condition of the amount of gelatin then the amount of silver.

In the beginning post to this thread, you made a comment that the term "silver rich" had been "blasted". To paraphrase you, the term had been given no basis in reality, could not be found and did not exist. It seemed rather unusual that you would open this thread with the contentious language that you did. In fact I would take your opening post more of a contention and a statement then an opening to dialogue on whether silver rich emulsions had benefit in other photographers experiences, if they were films that others used widely and what their experiences with these materials were. Perhaps a less contentious and more questioning manner of approach would have produced a far different result.

Now it seems rather strange to me that in your post that I copied above that you made an unfactual and unfounded statement. That being that I demanded the URL's of the other sites that you participate in. I have searched the posts of this thread and find no indication of that request. I have no interest in what you do here or elsewhere except as it applies to the words which you began this thread with.

Additionally, I have searched my emails and other then my email to you indicating that after careful consideration I had decided to not involve myself in any fashion with the Apug magazine for what I felt were good and valid reasons and your following email as an indication of your position in response to my decision, I find no other emails from you. The last emails prior to that are those which you initiated in which you requested information from me on several occasions about Azo paper, enlargers, and a communication about trays. I don't and haven't that I recall initiated email contact with (other then about the magazine matter) or IM'd you for what I have felt are equally good and valid reasons.

My interest is in maintaining a friendly and respectful forum in which we can openly discuss matters of photographic nature. The matter of respect occurs even when other people may not agree with me. I make no innuendo's, I speak effectively, and I have the courage to address matters from a responsible position. I ask the same from others that I may have contact with.

I am not fighting with you, nor will I lower myself to that position. I do respond factually on the basis of the words that are written and the positions taken...sometimes my responses are in agreement with others and sometimes they may disagree. I have found that to be true of other's responses to me as well. I don't take those disagreeing positions that others may take as basis for transparent attempts on my part to circumvent the matter and attack it on the flank. I rather choose those disagreeing points of view as a basis to question my knowledge and to correct where my understanding may be in error. I would hope the same would apply throughout.

Wow. This sure got nasty. What is going on? I've been in my share of flame wars too (I'm no angel), but really who cares about what is "silver rich" or not. Who really cares what the term means or doesn't mean? Does it really matter? Words words words. Nits. I see films, whatever the film type/stock number is, just like I see machines or computers... so long as they do what I "tell" them, it's all good. Other than that, it makes no difference what the chemistry or physics turns out to be.

Amen Steve.

Personally, I try films, see if I like them, and then use them when I need those particular characteristics.

In my bag I have Bergger 200, Pan F, TMax 100, and even some XP2.

I could care less about what words are used regarding them, I just care about how they look.

I think is time to put an end to this. I have reviwed the entire thread and I am unable to find factual information or testing either in favor or opposing the veraicity of supposedly silver rich films. Although I was tempted to remove the thread entirely I have decided against it as it does contain the member's opinions and ultimately that is what these forums are for. Nevertheless I think enough is enough and I am locking this thread and let it go into archive heaven.