why the hell is it so popular among so many skilled and experienced printmakers
Rudeofus - I've been rather disappointed in current Foma Variant Neutral FB - I never could get the warmishness out of it, and never did get it to cold tone afterwards decently. The best I got was by reverting back to my ole amidol/benz formula, which in former times was excellent for graded Bromide papers.
Lachlan - in the game of printmaking, the most important instrument of all is one's own pair of eyes. Reading every photo chemistry book ever written can't substitute for that. And I could sort out any one of the hundreds of prints I've made over the decades, and by its look alone, tell you not only what paper was involved, but what specific developer, with about 99% odds of being correct. (I rarely made notes). In fact, I rarely made two prints exactly the same, and deliberately reinterpreted each of them a bit.
And if glycin doesn't make any difference, why the hell is it so popular among so many skilled and experienced printmakers? Why can't Formulary keep their stock of it on the shelves for very long? Is this just due to some current fad based on website tales? If so, the web and its rumors have been around a hundred years longer than we thought.
Because many of them cannot separate between what they think they're seeing, what they want to see and what they're actually seeing, and very often cannot understand that many of their actions that they attribute to non-mainstream developers are in fact because all they have done is widen certain error bars.
You mean a print distinction - over the web??(**%(!!!). That would be like trying to listen to a symphony while driving down the freeway during rush hour next to a car boomboxing rap muzik, being chased by a cop siren. It just doesn't work that way.
Well, I, for one, am relieved to know that I see a difference between Dektol and Agfa Ansco 130 only because I live in a fantasy world—thankfully shared by others, hope the beer is good here—and am oblivious to the many errors I make.
This concept of "mainstream" developer is funny, though. Would be interesting to examine why, exactly, is Dektol "mainstream"—hello Kodak marketing and world-wide distribution—and what the heck that has to do with its chemical properties.
Hey Alex, I also have Ansco 130 at the top of my print developer list. PF has been my supplier.
Lachlan & Milpool seem to have the brass knuckles on.....if you don't like it, or haven't used it....just denigrate the developer & it's users. That's their fantasy world.
Hey Alex, I also have Ansco 130 at the top of my print developer list. PF has been my supplier.
Lachlan & Milpool seem to have the brass knuckles on.....if you don't like it, or haven't used it....just denigrate the developer & it's users. That's their fantasy world.
I object only to the endlessly repeated ad copy.
Hey, if you like it you like it. No brass knuckles here and I’m not denigrating the developer. I object only to the endlessly repeated ad copy.
Have you ever tried a back to back comparison from the same negative? One print developed in 130 and one in something else, be it Dektol or Multigrade, and all the other variables held the same? Ideally developed to the same density and contrast too.I've used 130 enough to have gotten results i appreciate.....
Have you ever tried a back to back comparison from the same negative? One print developed in 130 and one in something else, be it Dektol or Multigrade, and all the other variables held the same? Ideally developed to the same density and contrast too.
I'm curious how much of a role the paper developer plays in the results you appreciate. My gut says that paper developer should pay a fairly small role, but I have not much to base that on.
Have you ever tried a back to back comparison from the same negative? One print developed in 130 and one in something else
I've used 130 enough to have gotten results i appreciate..... Do you really think everyone with an opinion here has just read ad copy? ......"Give me Dektol or give me death".....
A lot of conditioning goes into our choices and how we judge our results.
I don't understand what you mean by that. If I see more contrast, it has nothing to do with conditioning, but with the fact that there is more contrast. Same if there's more separation in the shadows or in the highlights, etc.
Choices come later: Do I like what I see? Do I prefer this paper or this paper? Do I prefer this paper in this developer or in that one? There, yes, conditioning may play a part.
In my experience there is surprisingly little difference between B&W paper developers, assuming they do develop a full image. This used to be different several decades ago, but with modern papers you will see little to no change.
I'd recommend you take the Dektol route, it's a proven developer which, if you leave it at full stock concentration, will likely last you through many dark room sessions.
Not everyone, of course, but I suspect most. Ansco 130 is one example but there are many others. A lot of conditioning goes into our choices and how we judge our results. It’s just the way it is.
To be clear, Ansco 130 might give slightly different results than Dektol, although this will depend on the paper used. Any differences may or may not have to do with the presence of glycin. Maybe it’s the high level of bromide.
I’m not trying to promote Dektol either. I don’t particularly care what developer anyone uses. However when it comes to say Dektol or Ilford Multigrade you don’t see anywhere near the kinds of claims (often hyperbolic) you see when people talk of bygone developing agents or other ingredients etc. Funny how that works.
Interesting, I have used 130 very little and never LPD. My mainstay has always been Multigrade, but I never seem to use up a 1L bottle of concentrate before it goes off.My opinion is that paper developer plays as much in the equation for example as film developer does in processing film.
My preference for exhibition or sale prints is PF130 or LPD.
"These amps go to eleven!"I don't know what that is, exactly, but glycin definitely adds more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?