Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes View Post
Pat - I'm pleased you've taken to the world of pdfs so quickly, but I think you might find you can post photos as jpgs that look better than photos as pdfs.

If you have any combiniation of two of the following:

text, layout, and photos,

then pdfs are probably your best choice. But the pdf generator will probably recrunch/compress the photo when it makes it into a pdf. If you stick with jpgs, they should post with the compression settings as you saved them.
I looked at both formats, and can send either one. According to the rules for allowable file size, I must cut the .jpg file to a smaller transmitted size than the .pdf. My internet is by dial-up with a maximum rate of 26.4 k because I live in the boonies and can't afford to use the satellite. We are supposed to get fiber optic telephone lines here, which will allow me to get DSL. I hope I live to see the day.

I am not so much concerned about grain or sharpness at this stage. When I get to that point, I will send a lower resolution overall and a high resolution of a portion. I will be more careful in setting the exposure next time. I bracket, but if, as in this case, I don't expose for the shadows, some information will be lost.

So far, I am pleased with the grain, gradations and sharpness of this developer. There is, of course, practically no sulfite in the working solution, even if the good K2SO3 is used.

I'm going to try using potassium ascorbate in place of the sulfite in a small batch. When I tried it before, it was not so good, partly because it was before I got the idea of using the p-aminophenol base. (I did not know the history of Rodinal as has been exposed here, and thought the formula in "The Darkroom Cookbook" was IT.)