Try not even close to true.
I used Sprint once (a few years ago) when I was out of Dektol. I found them to be very similar, to the point of no perceptible difference. I also had no issue getting good blacks, which matched prints done from the same negative/same paper as prints previously made with Dektol.I've had no problem getting a good black with Sprint print developer and I have compared it to Dektol side by side.
But I can certainly see that the blacks aren't as black as they could be, no matter how much I expose them or how long I develop them, just not as rich as the Dektol developer prints I've seen.
I think each and every one should use what they like, but base it on personal experience with it, instead of what they read online.
Seems to me that Stone has done some testing with both kinds of developer, and that's great. He picked something he likes.
Still, that doesn't mean the Sprint developer sucks just because a couple of users dislike it. I've seen plenty of prints from people using Sprint print developer, or the whole Sprint system, actually, that blew me away. It's all subjective, and the argument boils down to the simple task of simply staying humble and being careful with how we express ourselves.
It's too easy to end up in unnecessary arguments by being much too strong worded instead of simply claiming what you say as opinion.
thomas
i am all for stone's trying developers and papers and films and learning and deciding about what he likes because of personal experiences
but when someone makes blanket statements like "sprint developers suck" i want to hear why, not to change his mind, but to know why
because i have had exactly the opposite experience, even the first roll i exposed and printed.
when someone then makes false statements like "the print and film developer are THE SAME DEVELOPER" i will call them on it
and say it isn't true, just like i would do if someone said tri x and some other film were the same film, just a different notch codes ...
and to make assertions that the developers are sub par because they are "formulated to mask over poor technique" ( which i think was a slight directed at me? )
i will ask again, if the developers it is most closely related to ( like d76 and id 11 ) are also tailor made for people who are incompetent ...
if i made blanket statements and said something like d76 and dektol suck, they are the same developers, and are tailor made for people
who are incompetent, i would certainly expect a rush of people telling me that i was wrong and ask me why i thought these thing.
The thing I most recently exposed and then developed was this.
It's a contact print on 60yo+ Grade 2 Velox 6.5x9cm, from a 6x9 negative shot recently on 70yo+ nitrate film, and developed in ID36 1+1 with a bit of benzotriazole.
Does ID36 "suck", but the way?
(As you can see, I am a Master Printer producing work of the highest Exhibition Quality)
I think I'm getting the hang of this 8x10 thingummy:
View attachment 96319
I think I'm getting the hang of this 8x10 thingummy:
View attachment 96319
That's very cool. There is something interesting about the look of this, and I don't mean the composition or photograph but the look of the contact print, the result of the film + velox. Neat!The thing I most recently exposed and then developed was this.
Please share it here, or when you make one you like.My blackberry anthotype is printing itself on the balcony.
I think I'm getting the hang of this 8x10 thingummy:
View attachment 96319
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?