Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,690   Posts: 1,482,381   Online: 738
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: silver rich

  1. #21
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Images
    8
    <joke mode on> /

    hey, while we're having fun,why don't we all wrestle with what the phrase "Tonal range" means? Best reply gets a pair of toenail clippers...

    /<joke mode off> :lol: :lol:

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Clay,
    Mine has deliciously separated whipped cream highlights and shadows that you could reach into to your elbow. Bet that is better then yours...

  3. #23
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Images
    8
    delicate gossamer fairy-wing highlights smoothly changing to velvety velour shadows - with rich Corinthian leather midtones in between.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Clay,
    I gotta admit you got me with the corinthian leather midtones...Mine are somewhat compressed...more like old boot leather. But I imagine that I made up for it with the "length of scale" in the highlights.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Ok, let me try to sort this out. I have heard of "silver rich" enlarging or contact papers. The best known example is the POP by Chicago albumen works, where at some time they "claimed" their paper produced better blacks because of the extra silver. This claim was later adopted by Forte. Dr. J. Henry in his book controls in black & white debunked this theory by making measurements with a micro densitometer and ploting the results vs a "normal" paper, where he shows that "silver rich" papers do not have any advantage over any other papers as far as obtaining greater Dmax. IOW they DO NOT give blacker blacks.

    Some people, Adams among them hypothesized that "older" films gave better results because they had a higher silver content than "modern" films. Among the supposedly better qualities was better expansion and less blocked highlights. The best known example is super XX, of which Adams was very fond. IMO this anecdotal experiences are due to the less than perfect antihalation dyes used at the time, where the "modern" films were more suceptible to problems caused by inadequate antihaltion dyes.

    As Sandy mentioned, the effect of pyro or tanning developers occurs in the gelatin and not in the silver, although the presence of silver causes an enhacement of the stain. The trick as Sandy and others have done is to formulate a developer which has little effect on the gelatin but is augmented when "exposed" silver is present and aids the tanning developer into forming a stain. These we know as proportional developers. GIven the "correct" formulation proportional developers like Pyrocat HD can be made to behave like other pyro developers and produce an overall stain, but this has less to do with the amount of silver content than with the formulation and action of the main developing ingredient that is pyro or catechol.

    Unfortunatelly for Aggie she got caught in a debate which probably she was not aware but which people who have been doing this for a while know to be less than truthful. ALthough the term "silver rich" is present in the photography literature, it is essentially meaningless as it has not been proved that silver content can be connected with "better" negatives or prints, and most of the anecdotal obesrvations are many times due to other factor than silver content.

  6. #26
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    First let me apologize to Clay for coming on so strong. My stand on densimeters goes back to last spring when we were discussing them in many many threads. But this thread was not started about densimeters or staining developers as it has been calimed I did it for.

    Next let me quote myself:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    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!
    Again as in the second post in this thread did I mention at any time who, or where? I belong to three different on line photography forums. I also tend to hang out off the net with photographers. some of those same photographers are on this forum. Next if I felt the need to answer one person in another thread, I am sure that my history on this site will speak for itself. I would not have hesitated to have answered that other thread right then and on that thread itself! I am not what you call shy or retiring in my opinions. So to take this thread that was just AGAIN VERIFYING THE TERM EXISTS and making it into a vendetta like thing is absurd. Did I mention staining developers in THIS thread? Did I mention any names or try to pull any other person directly into this thread as being party to some other thread? NOOOO!!!!!!!! I do take issue to the way that this has disuintegrated from the original start of THIS thread to one that has nothing to do with what I said. No one knows what I think unless I say it specifically!

    Jorge you did well In the most adult response to bring it back to a more sane outlook. As for being caught in a crossfire of another discussion? well that other discussion was not here until it got distorted. This thread was simply a thread to say yes the term exists and is out there in pulbications.

    no one wins the toenail clippers!

    Now if you all will exucse me, I refuse to have my name further used to make it look like I was saying or doing something I did not do. It's been well over 30 years since I was in Jr. High and around this kind of discussion.
    Non Digital Diva

  7. #27
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    Sounds like a good first article for the new magazine...

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Aggie,
    While this last post of yours has been a most eloquent statement of your position. I would appreciate, for the standpoint of a further peaceful relationship in this forum, if you would care to elaborate on the basis of your original post to this thread.

    I have taken the liberty of copying and posting that post below. Since you made allegations of certain actions and words/statements made in your original post, I would really appreciate it if you would give me/us a place that we can look for that this supposed blasting and statement(s) were made. Had you not broached the subject yourself I would not be asking for a further explanation. I think that this is fair in the interest of maintaining a peaceful and coexistant community. Fair enough?

    Initial post

    "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!"[/b]

    Aggies response to responses to initial post


    To discount it out of hand and to say from the orginal thread that it does not exist and is a made up term, was reason for saying yes this term does exist.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    229
    Such passion!

    Did, uh...did anyone else besides me make any photographs today? I decided to indulge my passion in an all-Agfa afternoon: Agfa Isolette V (so-called "Jsolette" model); Agfa APX 400 film; and in a little while I'll soup it in Rodinal.

    Because it was an overcast afternoon and I want bristling contrast I'll going for 50% longer than normal development. The entire roll is of the new Fort Worth Modern Art Museum, a marvellous structure, so the contrast will suit the subject.

    Say, how much silver is in APX 400 anyway...?

    Back to the silver-rich debate...

    Has anyone here had an opportunity to try the various films rumored to be silver rich in a wide variety of old style developers? For example, anyone tried their last batch of Super XX in 777?

    My point is, perhaps behind the original claims for these films decades ago is more than emulsion. It might be equal parts film, mysterious proprietary developer and a technique known only to initiates to the black arts.

    Let's assume the possibility that the answer to the silver rich challenge is akin to Belbo's riddle in "Foucault's Pendulum": Do you have the password?
    Three degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.

  10. #30
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Aggie,
    While this last post of yours has been a most eloquent statement of your position. I would appreciate, for the standpoint of a further peaceful relationship in this forum, if you would care to elaborate on the basis of your original post to this thread.

    I have taken the liberty of copying and posting that post below. Since you made allegations of certain actions and words/statements made in your original post, I would really appreciate it if you would give me/us a place that we can look for that this supposed blasting and statement(s) were made. Had you not broached the subject yourself I would not be asking for a further explanation. I think that this is fair in the interest of maintaining a peaceful and coexistant community. Fair enough?
    Since this seems to be a directed question just to me, not from an us but you Don let me go through this again. We are going on a journey now of personal history.

    Wayback machine set for fall of 1973:
    My first class as a Junior in college (reference must name the college) Sothern Utah State College (now Southern Utah University must keep these facts straight, but I probably will be asked to verify that I went there with transcripts) In a beginning photography class Oh must name a teacher since this is inoccous enough I will name him by name, Professor Rowley told us (this meaning the full class that was in attendance at that time period in that city in that state) of silver rich films. I had no knowledge of most things photographic before taking that class other than an instamatic.

    Next jump through history. got married, had child, was able to between children afford a medium format camera. 1983 purchased a mamiya 645. do not know what time of year precisely. Sales person was the first one to tell me there were no silver rich films. This place was "Samy's Camera in LA" I thought no more of it.

    Fast forward again. 1990 Tucson Az. Purchsed a few items for my canon f1n again was in discussion about films and the new ones available. I watched as two sales clerks got into fight about silver rich films.

    fast forward to present. I had to go back and find the other post directly after starting this thread to see exactly why Don had thought I had singled out what he had said. Nope not the item I talked about. For those who attend the presnt little college I take photography classes at< they will recognize exactly who it was that blasted me in the department. All I have to say is daytime. Anyone who goes to that college and several are here and post regulary, know exactly whom I speak of. It is also know the history of the way that individual talks to me. Since this is not an issue that needs further clarification on this forum with that person name, I will not mention it further.

    So Don NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and I can type that more times if need be, it is not in reference to that other thread that I started this thread.



    Aggies response to responses to initial post


    To discount it out of hand and to say from the orginal thread that it does not exist and is a made up term, was reason for saying yes this term does exist.
    now for the above mentioned bit. That came later in this series of posts did it not? I guess everyone who reads this can look over the cronology of what posts came when. By this time that other thread had been drug into this mess that it has become. Yeah by this time I did reference back to the other thread

    Let me reference back to still another thread since that is what is becoming the issue here. One that I stumbled upon while trying to find the one Don is so obbsessed about. MikeK sorry about not responding, I did not feel it a major issue that I had to respond in that thread. I have since found the full text of what Gordon Hutchings puts in his jobo to make PMK work better. It was not just metaborate, it was sodium metaborate. If you need the book that this info came out of, it is "The Book Of Pyro" I was remiss in not responding to that when you brought about a differeing view in another thread. I hope going back I do not find more that I did not respond too. My fingers are getting tired.

    Nest Lex, yeah I did take a few shots today. Didn't do any developing. If you want to see what a shot with a supposed old emulsion film looks like, go to the non picture gallery and it is the last page. the picture entitled oblivious in Yosemite. that one was shot with forte 200 and developed in PMK. straight un fiddled with scan of the negative. But opps looking back at that I was also asked back then what film and such by someone (darn forgot who already) and I forgot to respond to that thread also. Isn't getting older a bitch?

    Now lastly I have a question straight for Don, no couching it with me/us. I want to know, why you feel the need to turn what was a peaceful discussion that had started about emulsions and a simple term into something you veiwed and like a pit bull could not let go of as being directed soley at what you said in another thread? Is there some hidden agenda I should know about? I have stated several times I did not say who or where. I alluded to three different web sites. to which you demanded then the url. But I also eluded to having a life outside of the web to which I associate with photographers. What is the real reason you did this?

    And as I have told Don recently in email (not about this darn thread or even the other one) I will not have anything more to do with you. I since blocked his address from my mail account. and just delete any PM's I receive here. If this doesn't put a stop directly to it Don, Happy fighting, with yourself. But be fair to others, now require all people to have to site every last bit of information you do not agree with. Make all have to give url's and other info to back up every last little infatesimal thing. Be fair! to all!

    Sean do we have an ignore ability on this forum? Maybe that could be implemented.
    Non Digital Diva

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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