Jarred asked: 'Essentially the question I am asking is, do films processed in dr5 hold more or less actual recorded information versus their negative counterparts? This is easily tested by shooting step tablets under controlled conditions and processing in both dr5 and conventional negative developers. Have you ever tried this for comparison?'
I've tried it, and I found that, though the dr5 process produces good results for a reversal process, I can still get more information using a negative processs.
As always, I will make the disclaimer that my testing was not exhaustive, it was tailored to my technique and my requirements and other people may well find that dr5 suits them better than the negative process. It is certainly good to have the dr5 process available, and there is no commercial equivalent that I know of.
Home-brew dr5 equivalents have one advantage that goes beyond the cost and time comparison: the process can be tweaked to your exact individual requirements. Reversal processing offers the opportunity to tailor the density range and graininess to an extent beyond that offered by conventional negative processing (but perhaps not unconventional negative processing). The second development enables this - it does not have to be a conventional developer because it doesn't need to do the billion-fold 'amplification' that the first developer does. The technical possibilities are endless - but they are subordinate to the ultimate aim of producing the 'right' image.
I would encourage anyone to try the dr5 process at least once, and to discuss their requirements with the good 'doctor' so that they try the optimum film/EI combination for their purposes. Personality aside, David Wood deserves commercial success for his venture and I hope that it thrives.
Last edited by Sean; 01-04-2005 at 07:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: some best kept off-line
If your goal is to make direct positves from enlarged negatives, there is a very good article in unblinkingeye but it involves light fogging. I once tried the Kodak direct positive and it was very good, and it uses a chemical fogging instead of light fogging.
Last edited by Sean; 01-04-2005 at 07:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Thanks for all the info, all.
I agree with the patent vs no-patent argument. It is also costly (in my opinion) to patent things.
I also am a patent site browser...not to commercially violate things, but because I am curious. Some things may be best unstated.