Snake oil?

[clay]

Just got an email for a new company that is touting a new 'best' developer in the world. Amongst a lot of other verbiage I ran across this statement about the developer:

"Negatives show very low fog levels, very high acutance (edge sharpness), and very fine grain. Negatives made with any film will show very large and distinct breaks of tone, with considerable local contrast within. Characteristics of any film can be simulated exactly with this product ( I can easily duplicate the look of a Tri-X, or Super XX, or Versapan negative with FP-4 (or any) film, using *XXXXX* developer)"

Is it me, or does the phrase 'breaks of tone' sound like bullshyte when you are talking developing about a continuous tone film? Does this person really believe that god created 10 distinct zones and that is all you get in a print?

 

[laz]

Just got an email for a new company that is touting a new 'best' developer in the world.

Hey, what happened to the "end of film"? New company, new developer?

What is it? They have a website I assume?

 

[Ole]

The description looks a bit like my experiences with Neofin Blau - but that's hardly "new"!

 

[Donald Miller]

Is it me, or does the phrase 'breaks of tone' sound like bullshyte when you are talking developing about a continuous tone film? Does this person really believe that god created 10 distinct zones and that is all you get in a print?

Sounds like someone who has studied just enough to be disturbingly dangerous...My take is that it is bullshyte..

 

[jim appleyard]

As Yogurt (Mel Brooks) would say, "Merchandising!" It's like any other porduct in the world, it's the "BEST!"

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

FA-1027?

Sounds like the Fine Art Photo Supply FA-1027 to me. People have different opinions to whether they like it or not. Most call it, ' nothing special', while the company selling it calls it 'superior'. I hope I'm correct in my assumption it's FA-1027.
If I'm right, in their defense, they don't mention anything about how you can emulate the look of Super-XX or any other film, but they do brag quite a bit about how superior it is to even Pyro developers in terms of sharpness.
Link: http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/FA1027 Developer.htm

I just bought three bottles of it to try it out So far so good, but I haven't printed anything from it yet. Negs look clean, though.

- Thom

 

[billtroop]

Perhaps we should have a collection of favourite snake oil claims? One I always remember is from the Fred Picker Zone VI developer that claimed it 'avoided' 'aggravated dumping of low values' Omigosh! A developer that avoids aggravated dumping of low values! Just what we've all been searching for! What photographer wouldn't drool and slaver over ad copy like that?

Wouldn't you rather chug happily along in the darkroom, supremely confident that your prints will no longer have aggravatedly dumped low values? Isn't that nicer than thinking the truth, which is that it was just yet another boring old PQ print developer?

Picker certainly was an artist -- in advertising.

 

[lee]

Hi Clay,

I got the same email just 5 min ago and it it the guy from fineartphotosupply. He is a Fred Picker clone in my opinion.

lee\c

 

[photomc]

A-yup...just read the same email, and if don't look like the same thing with a new name...funny, thought they got bought out by the Formulary?

Will have to say the tacking iron I bought from 'em was dirt cheap and works as well as the $$ version.

Hi Clay,

I got the same email just 5 min ago and it it the guy from fineartphotosupply. He is a Fred Picker clone in my opinion.

lee\c

 

[c6h6o3]

Just got an email for a new company that is touting a new 'best' developer in the world.

Just as with Fine Art Photo Supply, I found myself wanting to try it. The price seems reasonable. As I read the product description, however, I'm so put off by the incessant bloviating about how this product is superior to any other developer ever invented, discovered, imagined or intuited that I end up just clicking out of the site.

I would be almost certain to give this stuff a try were I not so oversold. This guy is a master at snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.

 

[clay]

Well, yeah. I think Sandy King made the point a while back that the differences between developers, when they are used to their individual maximum effectiveness, are very small indeed. I proved this to myself last weekend when I tested an old formula called AGFA 17, an old fine-grain solvent developer with loads of sulfite, developed to gamma infinity no less, against FX-39, a modern super-duper hi-acutance miracle brew. I used the same film, and blew up sections of negatives from each developer to a 16x enlargement factor. The sharpness and grain differences were very subtle. Naturally, the FX-39 did edge the old brew in acutance, but only by a little! That was a real eye-opener. Only a dedicated print sniffer would have been able to tell the difference. I think so much of it boils down to consistency and experience. A good printer can coax a stunning print out of a crappy negative, while a newbie will make hash of a perfect one.

Just as with Fine Art Photo Supply, I found myself wanting to try it. The price seems reasonable. As I read the product description, however, I'm so put off by the incessant bloviating about how this product is superior to any other developer ever invented, discovered, imagined or intuited that I end up just clicking out of the site.

I would be almost certain to give this stuff a try were I not so oversold. This guy is a master at snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.

 

[c6h6o3]

My favorite developer is Harvey's 777. If I couldn't get that I'd use ABC Pyro. If that were not available to me I'd use Pyrocat HD.

I've made negatives in triplicate and developed each separately in each of the 3 developers mentioned above. I was able to produce prints from them which were indistinguishable. The exposure times were different, and the Pyrocat negative needed some more burning than the others, but nobody can tell the difference in the prints. And to be honest, I can't tell the difference between the Harvey's negative and the ABC one any more.

For now, Mr. Guidice can keep his developer. Perhaps if I see his prints one day and am utterly bowled over by them I could change my mind. As Dizzy Dean said: "If you did it, it ain't braggin'." But first he's gotta show me that he did it, and the only way to do that to me is with prints. Bold talk counts for nothing.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I tested the Fine Art 1027 (or what ever the number was). I was not impressed, but I used it in a Jobo and he recomended tray development. When I plotted the curves for it it was very "lumpy" which could work for some images (on a random basis I think). I think the lumpyness of the curve may be what he feels makes the developer unique and good, but it just scares me.

I decided that for my work XTOL is as good as any and is easy to use in the Jobo, plus I get a bit more speed than others I have tried.

I was also impressed with the tacking iron I bought from Fine Art. Plus, I get the feeling that Anthony is a nice guy, but I do think he oversells his products as others have stated.

 

[clay]

I actually ended up with a couple of packets of 777 that I have not used yet. I'm curious, what films are you using it on? Isn't this the magic brew that W. Eugene Smith and other supposedly used back in the old days?

What specifically makes it your favorite? I am always curious why people settle on one developer. I think it depends on your objective function. Sharpness vs contrast control vs grain size for example. IOW, what do you prize most in a developer?

My favorite developer is Harvey's 777. If I couldn't get that I'd use ABC Pyro. If that were not available to me I'd use Pyrocat HD.

I've made negatives in triplicate and developed each separately in each of the 3 developers mentioned above. I was able to produce prints from them which were indistinguishable. The exposure times were different, and the Pyrocat negative needed some more burning than the others, but nobody can tell the difference in the prints. And to be honest, I can't tell the difference between the Harvey's negative and the ABC one any more.

For now, Mr. Guidice can keep his developer. Perhaps if I see his prints one day and am utterly bowled over by them I could change my mind. As Dizzy Dean said: "If you did it, it ain't braggin'." But first he's gotta show me that he did it, and the only way to do that to me is with prints. Bold talk counts for nothing.

 

[Maine-iac]

Well, yeah. I think Sandy King made the point a while back that the differences between developers, when they are used to their individual maximum effectiveness, are very small indeed. I proved this to myself last weekend when I tested an old formula called AGFA 17, an old fine-grain solvent developer with loads of sulfite, developed to gamma infinity no less, against FX-39, a modern super-duper hi-acutance miracle brew. I used the same film, and blew up sections of negatives from each developer to a 16x enlargement factor. The sharpness and grain differences were very subtle. Naturally, the FX-39 did edge the old brew in acutance, but only by a little! That was a real eye-opener. Only a dedicated print sniffer would have been able to tell the difference. I think so much of it boils down to consistency and experience. A good printer can coax a stunning print out of a crappy negative, while a newbie will make hash of a perfect one.

Within reason, I'd have to agree with Sandy's analysis. Which is why I've saved a ton of money over the years not buying any developer and mixing my own. Currently (and for the past decade) I've been on a Phenidone/Ascorbic Acid/Metaborate kick because it's 1)cheaper than dirt, 2)takes less than two minutes to mix from scratch as a one-shot, and 3)gives me negs that print beautifully. But for years I used HC-110 B and before that D-23 and D-23C (my own combo of D-23 with some added ascorbic acid) and before that Microdol-X, and guess what. Got good fine-grain, very sharp, good tonal scale negs with all of them. So you pays your money and you takes your choice. None of them, including my current brew, improves poorly exposed film or poorly seen scenes. A banal or dull photo is a banal or dull photo regardless of the developer. And I've got plenty of proof of that among my "oeuvre."

Larry