BTW, the answer to Belbo's riddle: Do you have the password?
The answer? "No."
Personally, I think Eco may have cribbed a bit from Tolkien (recall Frodo's solution to the password needed to enter the mountains, which the great Gandalf could not solve).
The point is that sometimes we may be a wee bit too smart for our own good when it comes to solving riddles.
Here we are, sharpening sticks amongst ourselves rather than going straight to the source and asking, say, Kodak to finally spill. Out with it, Rochester: What's the diff between films? Where does the silver halide end and the iodide and sensitizing dyes begin?
Oh, I forgot...Kodak is all ones and zeroes these days.
Three degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.
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.
When life leaves you lemons, make stop bath, and save money.
Thank you for replying to my questions. I recognize that you posted questions to me and I will repond to those in a factual and truthful basis.
The reason that I thought that you began this thread on "Silver Rich" as a furtherance of the discussion from an earlier thread is as follows: In the earlier thread you made a comment about silver rich films staining better in PMK developer. I responded with a reply to your comment that indicated the basis of two types of stain and the indications by densitometric tests that "silver rich" films "whatever that is" did not seem to be the basis for that ability. As I recall Sandy King then weighed in with his opinion that the gelatin was the componant of the film that was stained and that heavier general stain was more a condition of the amount of gelatin then the amount of silver.
In the beginning post to this thread, you made a comment that the term "silver rich" had been "blasted". To paraphrase you, the term had been given no basis in reality, could not be found and did not exist. It seemed rather unusual that you would open this thread with the contentious language that you did. In fact I would take your opening post more of a contention and a statement then an opening to dialogue on whether silver rich emulsions had benefit in other photographers experiences, if they were films that others used widely and what their experiences with these materials were. Perhaps a less contentious and more questioning manner of approach would have produced a far different result.
Now it seems rather strange to me that in your post that I copied above that you made an unfactual and unfounded statement. That being that I demanded the URL's of the other sites that you participate in. I have searched the posts of this thread and find no indication of that request. I have no interest in what you do here or elsewhere except as it applies to the words which you began this thread with.
Additionally, I have searched my emails and other then my email to you indicating that after careful consideration I had decided to not involve myself in any fashion with the Apug magazine for what I felt were good and valid reasons and your following email as an indication of your position in response to my decision, I find no other emails from you. The last emails prior to that are those which you initiated in which you requested information from me on several occasions about Azo paper, enlargers, and a communication about trays. I don't and haven't that I recall initiated email contact with (other then about the magazine matter) or IM'd you for what I have felt are equally good and valid reasons.
My interest is in maintaining a friendly and respectful forum in which we can openly discuss matters of photographic nature. The matter of respect occurs even when other people may not agree with me. I make no innuendo's, I speak effectively, and I have the courage to address matters from a responsible position. I ask the same from others that I may have contact with.
I am not fighting with you, nor will I lower myself to that position. I do respond factually on the basis of the words that are written and the positions taken...sometimes my responses are in agreement with others and sometimes they may disagree. I have found that to be true of other's responses to me as well. I don't take those disagreeing positions that others may take as basis for transparent attempts on my part to circumvent the matter and attack it on the flank. I rather choose those disagreeing points of view as a basis to question my knowledge and to correct where my understanding may be in error. I would hope the same would apply throughout.
Wow. This sure got nasty. What is going on? I've been in my share of flame wars too (I'm no angel), but really who cares about what is "silver rich" or not. Who really cares what the term means or doesn't mean? Does it really matter? Words words words. Nits. I see films, whatever the film type/stock number is, just like I see machines or computers... so long as they do what I "tell" them, it's all good. Other than that, it makes no difference what the chemistry or physics turns out to be.
Personally, I try films, see if I like them, and then use them when I need those particular characteristics.
In my bag I have Bergger 200, Pan F, TMax 100, and even some XP2.
I could care less about what words are used regarding them, I just care about how they look.
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
I think is time to put an end to this. I have reviwed the entire thread and I am unable to find factual information or testing either in favor or opposing the veraicity of supposedly silver rich films. Although I was tempted to remove the thread entirely I have decided against it as it does contain the member's opinions and ultimately that is what these forums are for. Nevertheless I think enough is enough and I am locking this thread and let it go into archive heaven.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)