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!
Supposedly there are a handful of old style, silver rich films available. Efke R100 is said to be one of 'em. Can't tell by the film base which is so thin and conspires to curl so fiercely one would be disinclined to associate the words "thick" or "rich" with the film. The word I associate with R100 is "Behave, DAMMIT!"
OTOH, it is truly a lovely film.
On the third hand so is APX 100 and I haven't heard whether it's supposed to be silver rich, oil rich, nuevo riche or land poor.
I haven't seen the post that blasted the term "silver rich". I thought it was common knowledge that the silver content has been decresed over the years to gain speed and reduce production cost (but no reduction in cost to the consumer). Maybe a more "acceptable" term would be "silver content greater than current standards" or SCGTCS ------ :evil:
Kind of reminds of a former life when the term barracks was dropped in favor of "Unaccompanied Personnel Housing", UPH. But that wasn't acceptable enough so differentiation had to be made between Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing, UEPH, or Unaccompanied Officer Personnel Housing, UOPH.
For some reason, its easier for me to say, and hear, barracks and silver rich, vice UOPH UEPH SCGTS. :cry:
What I've read re old emulsions are films designed about or before WW2.
ORWO, that later become other company (Adox?) was the fist one to manufacture a thin emulsion - by the 60's, if I recall correctly. The other manufacturers followed it.
The reason is not economics - it's related to boosting sharpness (as light travel the depht of film, it difuses and smear).
Thanks Jorge, you're probably right. Makes sense that thin emulsions were brought about by the war, most likely due to the rapid advances necessary for aerial photography.
But in paper, there is the search for total black and rich mid-tones. I have followed my own journey for the paper of my dreams and found most papers to be good in their own right. Based on something I read, Cachet RF is supposed to have a deeper richer emulsion. If it is better than Forte Fortezo, it is not by much. I really can't complain about Ilford Gallery either. I will probably go insane before I can say which one is best for me with my negs and the developers I like so I will have to stick with the Forte ... no the Cachet .... no .... I mean the Galery - Awwww nuts - I am soooo confused - I calibrated my darkroom with the Forte so ... never mind!
Yup, what we gain with "thinner" emulsions and use of sensitizing dyes is increased sharpness and resistance to halation. Not a bad tradeoff.
But sometimes we may want that old school look.
I hear some folks say older style emulsions are friendlier to their ventures with pyro and staining/tanning developers. Mebbe so. I haven't tried 'em, unless it was in school 30+ years ago and forgot.
I think that if I am correct the post that Aggie is referring to was either my post or the following post by Sandy King in reference to the staining aspects of PMK developer. For those who wish to avail themselve to this information it may prove informative as to what the reference to "silver rich" was and in what content it was questioned. I will leave it to the readers whether the term "silver rich" was "blasted" by either Mr. King or myself. A search of the archives will locate this particular thread for those interested. I personally think that it is "old history" and is far beyond my interest at this time.
The basis of the information that I posted in reference to that thread was based in densitometric analysis of the basis of general and proportional stain. I still for the life of me do not know what "silver rich" means. I don't care whether it was Steve Anchell or Jesus Christ that used the term. I would just like the person using that term to explain to me in a scientific manner based in factual testing what it is and how it explains general stain.
Now if we are dragging paper into this matter it seems to be serving only to cloud the matter further. Perhaps obscurity is the desired basis of this discussion. I must say however that is not my desired result. I find that obscurity serves little to clarify the matter that was addressed.
I believe that there are thick emulsion films. Does this make them "silver rich"? (Whatever that is) I don't know that it does and I don't know that it doesn't. I do however know that they do have a thicker gelatin layer which would be more inclined to be stained by general staining.
In this thread I made no reference to who or what thread. I chose not to do that for a good reason. It then prompted a good start of a discussion on films and their emulsions. I chose only to give a term that was deemed not real the validity that it truely has in print. Further reading found it again a few moments ago in in one of Ansel Adams books in regard to films. FWIW
I can't find any specific mention in my reference book or those I've seen elsewhere, including web searches of Kodak's and other sites, to the issues of silver content or even emulsion thickness and how this may relate to matters that are measurable or definable.
It appears to be one of those topics like art and pornography - we know it when we see it and whether we like it.