PE: Interesting that this work continued as a result of digital.
Absolutely agree there is no magic developer (I'm actually trying to simplify the choice a little). However many things are said, not only by laypeople but by people formulating these things, and there are some claims I just don't think hold much water based on the mechanisms at work. This seems particularly to be the case concerning "sharp" developers such as Rodinal, Crawley's FXs and tanning/staining formulas. Not a new story I know, but I wanted to approach a few image structure characteristics from a critical perspective. Sharpness (or definition) is complex, but as far as the influence of developer/development goes, I'd like to question the concept of traditional acutance - ie the idea that solvent action per se has any significant influence on sharpness.
I agree introducing a lot of calculus is probably beyond what many people will find interesting so let's leave that for now (unless people want to get into it).
Alan: Why would A3 be so complicated? It is basically the idea I proposed (simplistic) but with more "factors" to account for the 4 gradients of the edge effects individually and separately from the gradient G2x in A2. Actually this is helpful since it points out a flaw in my simplified formula (ie no consideration of the edge effect gradients).
Last edited by Michael R 1974; 06-17-2013 at 08:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.