paresh_pandit

Thanks again for responding to the query, [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] . Yes, I can see how it seems trivial sometimes, in terms of what chemicals are banned where. There certainly needs to be a better (and perhaps, an universally applicable) system where they can ration out certain chemicals for certain uses, rather than putting out blanket bans. Not all people have the knowledge or the resources to find workarounds, every time – viz. yours truly, for eg. In India, at least for now, many a things are accessible due to relatively less stringent controls. However, due to abuse in agricultural sector, Thiourea is banned for retail sale. So there goes a good and cheap bleaching agent for us. I indeed see your point in sticking to one formula for a process and then mastering the workflow around gaining mastery over its use and iterations. Pyro PMK being a different breed of developers, interested me in terms of finding out what really was the difference. Of course, as you said, I might not really be able to notice much unless I do grain-peeking, anyway. Many a maters have in fact stuck to their formulae, despite some experts recommending that one can also make chemistry a variable for controlling the image-making process. D-23 is close enough to D-76, and both have been relied-upon throughout careers by many a great photographers, and I certainly do not need to reinvent the wheel, and rather focus on more productive things, you're right! :) [P.S.: Update on Metol. It is being sent out today, and should reach me by the weekend.] Wish you a nice day.

Dear all, Many thanks for the quick and insightful responses. For some reason, I did not receive email notifications on post replies. Thus, kindly accept my delayed acknowledgement and thanks. I understand from the guidance above, and some further reading, that it would indeed be wise to buy/make separate stock developers for print and paper. And have thus made a trip to the chemical supplies store in the city, yesterday. Unfortunately for me, Metol was not in stock, and shall be sent only on Tuesday/Wednesday vide courier now. Therefore, no experimentation, until I get it since Metol is the key developer for both formulae. [but the bonus was, at the camera store, got some expired rolls of Agfa APX 100 in 120mm, really cheap. So, all was not wasted, after all, haha.] As for Developers, have narrowed it down to an undivided D-23 for film, and a formula called Gevaert G.251 (found vide MDC). The latter is also quite similar to the above two paper developer formulae (from Ilford and Kodak), kindly shared by [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] and @JDMvW . I want to also try PMK Pyro soon, for film. A little later, though, at the time of my next round to the Chemical Supplies store. Also because Pyrogallol itself is quite expensive (compared to most other commercial photo chemicals i.e., excepting silver, gold, et al.) :D Thanks again to [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] for suggesting Metol substitution. As you can see from my story so far, I really need something to replace it, right this moment. Haha. Read up on Phenidone, and man, seems like it is certainly a much better all-round choice in terms of both speed as well as handling. Only concern that comes to mind is that due to acting slower than Phenidone, Metol might help produce lesser contrast and thus better tonality (?). Will post on my success with these soon–perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere on the forums. Have a nice weekend! :) Thanking you, With humble regards, Paresh

Hi guys, Good day, there. I have been developing my own BW film for some time now, and have recently acquired an old basic enlarger which I want to give a try. Now I have "fixed-up" most things that needed attention, and it is time for the rubber to meet the road. For film, I an inclined to now graduate to D-23 , made at home (vs. Caffenol which I have successfully used till date). The question is, could I use the D-23 for developing silver gelatin based Paper as well? I did not find much resources on the web discussing this, as people rarely seem to be discussing Paper Developers (side note: people have used Caffenol for Paper btw). The consensus, from what I found out, was that normally paper developers tend to be faster acting, and hence will develop films with higher contrast. And here, D-23 seems especially known for producing slow and relatively-lower-contrast negatives. Conversely, thus, a film developer recipe should produce lesser contrast for paper development – which seems to be an undesirable way to go about printing...?! Or not? Please advise. Further, I have found that most Paper Dev recipes require addition of Hydroquinone – which I would need to go out and get from the city center, and I stay far. [Is it a must-add for paper development? And if yes, what could be the alternatives?] At the moment, the priority is just to get my feet wet asap, as I am in the mindset to give this a go. Was going to get Ilford PQ Universal from a local dealer (heard it can also cook films pretty well – some say a little grainier); but he is out of stock, and will get stock in another ten days or so – to far out to start, for me. :D Another conundrum is that I have some really old local-brand sachets of universal film and paper developer at hand, in powder premix form. But they are now so old, that the each sachet has turned into a big solid bricky lump. Should it be worth it to break them, and brew in some warm water (instead of making some developer)? [Also, they also seem to prove a point that paper and film developers can be the same.] While on the subject, how about D76 for Printing? I know I am asking too many things at once, and going all over the place. Kindly excuse me for the same, in lieu of my excitement and tangentially limited options. Eagerly looking forward to your kind and able guidance! Best regards, Paresh

Hi David, I have sent you an email yesterday. Kindly let me know what you think, when you might have some time. Have a nice day. :) Best regards, Paresh

<p>Hi Avi / Hello all:<br /><br /><br> I am curious as to what happened next. Could you kindly throw some light on whether something worked out or not?</p> <p>I have recently acquired a Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED as well, and am also having connectivity issues with Scanning Software(s). I have a 13" Macbook Pro (Early 2011) with FW800 port and OS X 10.10.5. Initially, all worked well for a few test scans with Vuescan Demo and a Belkin FW400 - FW800 Cable. However, then Vuescan started to hang and ultimately stopped recognising my Scanner's presence. </p> <p>I do however see the Scanner in Hardware under Firewire, when connected. It sometimes shows up with its name, or most times, at least as an unknown device. But no longer does it show up on Vuescan (or Silverfast Demo either -- which I installed just to be sure). </p> <p>Also, further to this, I have tried a FW400-800 Adapter from Moshi (with the original FW400 cable that came with the scanner) and a Moshi FW800-800 Cable with a FW800F to FW400M adapter. Both of these were acquired from an Premium Apple Reseller store. And - not much luck yet with these either. </p> <p>Though same as was in your case, my scanner seems to blink and boot just fine and even take-in and eject the holders as it ever did -- which makes one rule out the hardware issue, as you said. Additionally, not to mention that these scanners are known to be notorious about which FW ports and cables they will or will not work with -- ironically enough, that is a shimmer of hope too. Well, another FW400-FW800 cable is also on its way for me. <br /><br />Fingers crossed. Gaaahh-- just want things to work. :/<br> Any help and guidance from any and all fellow-forumers is much appreciated in advance. :)<br /><br /><br> Sincerely,<br />Paresh</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>Where can we procure the Tetenal kits for E6 and C41 in India?</p> <p>Many thanks,<br> Paresh</p>