It's best to just talk to James about the details, he's very responsive to questions.
Is Zone Imaging's formula for its 510-Pyro proprietary? If not, how does it differ from Jay DeFehr's formula for 510-Pyro?
It's best to just talk to James about the details, he's very responsive to questions.
How can a developer containing Pyro can be ecofriendly?Apparently all 3 of his developers starting with 510Pyro are eco-friendly but his third one for which he wants/needs to get Ilford involved will be grainless and the most eco-friendly developer ever devised
How can a developer containing Pyro can be ecofriendly?
It is longterm aquatic toxic.
Futhermore it is toxic and likely mutagenic.
Is Zone Imaging's formula for its 510-Pyro proprietary? If not, how does it differ from Jay DeFehr's formula for 510-Pyro?
How can a developer containing Pyro can be ecofriendly?
It is longterm aquatic toxic.
Futhermore it is toxic and likely mutagenic.
Even if a oxidized developing agent would be benign, a developer bath is constituted the way that it contains enough developing agent to reduce all silver there is, just in case.
Are Zone Imaging claiming that they've improved Jay's formulations? I really doubt Jay would be fine with Zone Imaging or anyone tinkering with his formulations be it either 510-Pyro or Ichor. After all, he worked hard on those formulations and arrived at what he thinks gives the results he was looking for.
For such issues there is something called patent. So far I do not know of one for Jay Defehr.
Are Zone Imaging claiming that they've improved Jay's formulations? I really doubt Jay would be fine with Zone Imaging or anyone tinkering with his formulations be it either 510-Pyro or Ichor. After all, he worked hard on those formulations and arrived at what he thinks gives the results he was looking for.
I will be distributing Zone Imaging 510-Pyro in the USA. HIs is an improved formula over the original. I have 50 bottles en route to my shop as we speak.
True. But Zone Imaging sells 510-Pyro under the label "Defehr's 510-Pyro".
Has James not released the details to you that you can share?
pentaxuser
But this does not necessarily mean something. If a formula is free anyone may sell it, and even under any name as long this name itself is not protected.
The same for tweaking a free formula a bit
Sometimes even making up a story and attaching names to it may help selling.
Thanks for the reply, NorthEast Photographic. All we appear able to conclude is that James says it is improved but in what way we do not know.
It appears that Jay mentions in the link provided by Alan Johnson that the phenidone was increased to 0.37g but he then appears to say "Is this an improvement? " So is he questioning whether his change to 0.37 is an improvement or is he simply saying that this change is a small adjustment. You might need to know Jay's style of speech to know and I do not. John Finch in his video states 0.375g.
So setting the above aside what is James' change? Is it to the phenidone amount or to some other ingredient or both and if so is it the same as John Finch's 0.375?
At the risk of reading between the lines of NorthEast's reply I think he is saying that he sees no need to delve deeper into exactly what has changed or what quality difference this makes as it is a fine developer and as a user this is what counts and that's fine
I just get concerned when anyone wants to use the word improved with no attempt to quantify what that is
pentaxuser
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?