</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ed Sukach @ May 13 2003, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The ColorStar is "re-zeroed" according to the analysis of the test exposure.&nbsp;
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I don&#39;t quite understand.. I "zero" my ColorStar to the paper and as long as the batch is the same I don&#39;t see the need to change. To chase the chemistry seems futile...


</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ed Sukach @ May 13 2003, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Shifts due to chemical changes (i.e. oxidation) are compensated by adjusting the color filtration.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Is not that want to compensate for the chemistry better seen as the need to modify the replentish regime to keep to a more standard level? The QC paradigm of control strips seems in our context to be just as well filled using our calibration negatives and the settings for the paper using "good" chemistry.. Or am I missing something?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ed Sukach @ May 13 2003, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The RA-4 chemicals I am familiar with have one distiguishing characteristic when they are oxidized out: the color developer will darken from a "light straw" to brown.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That&#39;s where these Mini-lab sets come in as they are designed to replentishable and have demand rates that seem perfect for slot processors--- for example 100ml/m^2 for Tetenal&#39;s Ecoline BX-MR.