Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,903   Posts: 1,521,224   Online: 1082
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    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.

    Best wishes,
    Helen
    Last edited by Sean; 01-04-2005 at 06:05 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: some best kept off-line

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    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 06:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    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.

    Murray
    Murray

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin