Water or Stop Bath

[bill_troop1]

First, apologies to all who raised interesting points that I couldn't get to. It was difficult enough to focus on a few points. Now Garry brings us back to the main points:

 

>does time in solution-pH level-heat exchange-composition of stopbaths cause clumping=>increased grain [or other undesirable image irregularities]? [bT comment in brackets]

 

Some influential leading scientists at the end of the 20th century strongly held this conviction. Haist, Mason, Russell are three. There is some inferential basis in the literature to support this, but there is no explicit, decisive proof. I chose to go out on a limb and advocate what these scientists believed. So far the heat exchange has been visibly demonstrated, but not in film, rather, in the decomposition of my ego. It is undeniable that I took a controversial position. My question to readers is, would you rather I did that, or would you rather I played it safe with conventional wisdom? Believe me, I had my doubts! Up until the moment of publication, I pestered Grant Haist about this. (I couldn't pester Russell; I could no longer find him, and I fear he is no longer with us.) My doubts were removed by Haist. Of all the things he said to me on this topic, the one I remember best is, 'Bill, they can't prove you wrong.'

 

Let me give another perspective, drawn from medical research. These scientists had a clincal view, not an epidemiological view. Their opinion was based on decades of highly qualified observation. But they did not quantify their observations statistically. The reason is simple. Even in the heyday of lavish photographic research, they could not get it funded.

 

>do stopbaths cause "pinholes"? [or reticulation or other gross image irregularities?]

 

They can, but only when the stop bath is fresh and the pH approaches 3. This can be avoided, and the power of the stop bath to stop development can be increased by a factor 10 (measured in time) by using a buffered stop bath as suggested in FDC, p. 104. The formula, which is not obvious because it is contained in the text, is

 

120 ml 28% acetic acid

80 grams sodium acetate

to a litre of water

 

[or an equivalent amount of sodium di-acetate]

 

That is an expensive stop bath. But it's the best that science offers us. I strongly recommend reading the Crabtree and Henn article on which it is based, which I cited earlier. It is one of the great, finite, experiments in photographic science.

 

Just as important to ask, though, is whether acid processing can cause fine, subtle, image irregularities? That is harder to answer.

 

>do films have to be "processed ASAP" thereby justifing the dropping the stopbath step and(tang.) the use of alkaline fixers?

 

I don't understand this. Is the question, "is there a need to use stop baths to stop development completely and instantly?"

 

If so, the answer is yes, under some conditions. In practical photography, those conditions are, whenever the developing time is short and and difficult to control. But there is more to it than just the chemistry to consider. There is the draining time. Unless you have a way to move the film instantly from the developer to the stop bath, you will have a hard time getting any precision. Thus, short development times dictate open tanks. You will also have to decide on a draining time. The shorter your draining time, the faster you will get your material into the stop bath and actually stop development; but the shorter the draining time, the more you will decrease the life of the stop bath by bringing in more alkaline solution.

 

Because my only consideration is fine photography, I don't have to consider rapid access issues, and I didn't. But this was an important consideration in the past. Now, it seems that digital has taken over a lot of rapid access requirements, such as much press photography.

 

I have just had a look at the fixer chapter I handed to Steve Anchell. Steve Anchell is the most long suffering and loyal co-author anybody ever had. It has a lot of information, and a lot of it is geared to improving acid fixation. But it seems to me so quaint and out of date that I can't imagine what use it would be to anyone today. As I look at that, and I look at what Steve and I finally came up with, it is hard for me to understand the relationship between what I started with and what I ended with. I would have to say that both Steve and Grant encouraged me to look towards the future, not the past.

 

Someone had to do it. I don't want to give the impression that all of my collaborators and advisors are in agreement with my position. Some points were surprising to Crawley. It was clear to me that that Dickerson and Zawadzki had reservations, but they did not care to state them explicitly and I could not press them any more than I did. If I had to guess what they were thinking, it would be this: 'this is interesting, it is not what I would have written.' Howard James passed it without comment.

 

>unless your using a "staining developer" do acid stopbaths concern you?

 

Is the question, 'if you are not using a staining developer, should you worry about avoiding acid stopbaths?'

 

First, there may be some films where the staining action is so deterred that it does not make any difference. I doubt it, but Gordon Hutchings would be the person to discuss that.

 

Second, I would say that my position is that stop baths may cause harm and can under most circumstances that exist for ordinary photographers, beneficially be avoided. But, equally strongly, I hold that if you are going to use a stop bath, today, it should be an intelligent (albeit expensive) stop bath formulated along the lines suggested by Henn and Crabtree. Otherwise there's little point in using it. Let me also suggest that alkaline stop baths can be used and should be further researched. The best information I could get and give is contained on p. 120 of FDC.

 

Finally, I would like to say, that what I really would like to see is more research on alternate fixation processes.

 

There are two problems expressed in the literature by Mason (p. 198) and I think Haist (and certainly by Haist in conversation), with mercaptans. They are, as known in the 1980s, either too smelly, or too toxic, and some are both. Perhaps something has changed since then?

 

However, there is a further objection that can be made. Both of these authors wrote before the time of W.E. Lee's shattering but still preliminary experiments in the mid-1980s, which suggested that image stability is increased by the retention of an extremely small amount of thiosulfate in the silver image.

 

We need more research along these lines.

 

Where does that leave alkaline processing as advocated by me? I think in an OK place. Alkaline processing does not eliminate every trace of thiosulfate. It merely removes thiosulfate much, much faster than acid processing. (It is very important to realize that these results cannot be approached by alkalizing the material after it has been processed in an acid or neutral fixer.) Therefore, alkaline processing leaves just as much residual thiosulfate as careful acid processing does - it just does so more elegantly, in much shorter time, and with much less use of water and without the requirement of post-fixation washing aids. Obviously, it is far more generally useful for papers than for films, but FDC is primarily about films.

 

There is one other point I wanted to raise that I think is interesting, but for the life of me I can't remember it anymore. It may come back to me later.

[garrylewis747]

> ...W.E. Lee's shattering but still preliminary experiments in the mid-1980s, which suggested that image stability is increased by the retention of an extremely small amount of thiosulfate in the silver image. <

 

Has anyone done any new research into this work? I remember that this study was about High contrast documentary films and never addressed any work-a-day films(e.g.Tri-X). It has been the justification for the whole "to much washing is bad" movement for paper.Do we know that 'a little contamination' is better than

'total chemical elimination' for films and/or paper.

 

Do silver grains clump?

does solution time-temperature-composition have any clumping affects?

Does a 'ASAP' processed film have less grain/clumping than a equal

film that has had 'hours' of careful processing?

[kirk_keyes]

Bill writes, "My question to readers is, would you rather I did that, or would you rather I played it safe with conventional wisdom?"

 

I have time for this one - I would rather you state speculation as speculation, even if it comes from a leading authority. Simply saying "While there is no proof at this point, there is the theory that (fill in the blank)" would do it.

 

As it is - you flat out state speculation as truth! In the FDC, you state:

 

1. pH variations occur when a film is moved from an alkaline developer into an acid stop bath. This can generate enough molecular heat to cause the grains of the film to clump together.

 

OK - so that first sentence is certainly true. The second sentence is pure speculation. And despite Haist et. al. believing in the possiblity of it, that does not make it a true statement.

 

Thank you for finally addressing this issue. That is what we have been wondering about here, and after having to undure your personal attacks on both Ron and myself for days, you have finally addressed it. Thank you.

 

This also implies that if the statement is pure speculation (even if based on good supporting facts), perhaps the effect so small that it really is inconsequential.

 

You state Haist as saying, "My doubts were removed by Haist. Of all the things he said to me on this topic, the one I remember best is, 'Bill, they can't prove you wrong.'"

 

Conversely, you can't prove you are right. Thanks for getting around to clarifing that statement.

 

Well, that's really all I have time for, for now.

[kirk_keyes]

OK - I found a little more time.

 

So Point 1 in regards to stop baths at the top of page 103 of FDC has been shown to be speculation. Point 2 is an unlikely event. Point 3 - excessive swlling causes a loss of image integrity. Just how much and in what way? Many people actually try to accentiate edge differences - does the clumping you talk about cause and increase in edge differences or is it an overall effect? Do your sources give actual values, or is it a hunch and awaiting further undone research?

 

And would you address the use of rapid fixers? Many people now adays do not use "acid" fixers - they use more neutral, slightly acidic rapid fixers. You say that alkaline fixers are only better thiosulfate level wise than acid fixers in an elegant way, as they both can leave similar levels of thiosulates in the film. Is the alkaline fixer that much faster at washing than a rapid fixer?

 

Which brings back one of my original points - I have not been convinced that there is a real significant difference to an all alkaline process as you propose vs. a stop bath/rapid fix method that many others use. If the significant difference is only elegance, than perhaps cost and availability of materials will be my deciding factor in choosing which of them to use.

[bill_troop1]

In response to the latest:

 

>Grant did discuss fixing at length with me. We worked on mercaptan fixing agents together, and we discussed stop baths. While my memory is not as perfect as yours, here is what I can say regarding your points.

 

If that is true then you must know a great deal more than you are letting on to here.

 

> There is NO publication at EK relating to image distortion caused by stop baths, nor is there any report about heat generated during stopping causes problems in coatings. It was discussed with you as a theoretical possiblility, I'm sure, but not as FACT.

 

There is a lot of space, Row, between 'theoretical possibility' and 'fact'. I described the convictions of some very distinguished, very experienced scientists, far more senior to you. Do you consider their convictions to be valueless?

 

>2. It is well known that relief images generated by the tanning effect of many developers causes image sharpness increases.

 

But what has this got to do with anything we are discussing here?

 

>3. In no way do I recommend any aldehyede for hardening. Read my post. EK is doing away with them as fast as possible. In some cases, that has not been possible, but work is going ahead to remove it (them). Read my post please.

 

Your post carelessly indicated that they had been eliminated. Now you are backtracking.

 

>Please get off this track and don't misquote me or put words in my mouth.

 

And you find you don't like to backtrack. Welcome to the club!

 

>Regarding bubbles caused by acid fixes, I ran specific photographic tests making coatings and solutions to test the use of carbonate followed by an acid stop, and was unable to generate the pinhole effect in any way except using unsubbed material with no hardener and processing near the melting point of the gelatin! (this was considered to be an expected result and a non-commercially encounterable condition but was used as the reference or check)

 

If you want us to take this work seriously, publish it. If you want us to be interested in it, describe it in detail. Describe the films, the formulas of the developers you tested with, the formulas of the stop baths you tested. The pH of the solutions is crucial, as you know. In any case, as you know, we are not just talking about pinholes. We are talking about reticulation, a problem that still exists very much today, and we are talking about much more subtle effects. Please don't focus exclusively on gross effects. That would be to miss the point.

 

>The reason for this was that EK considered the possiblility of a problem arising from carbonate developers and acid stop baths, but postulated that it was a myth as there was no verified experimental data. The reason that they wanted experimental verification was the fact that many developers used borates and the EPA had warned EK that borates were toxic to citrus crops in Fla and Cal, and we had a deadline to remove it in certain products, so I was one of several people asked to verify the truth or falsity of this 'urban legend'. NO ONE was able to verify any bad effect caused by a stop bath, and therefore, stop baths were given the ok along with carbonate developers to replace borates. In color products, this took place in 1970 with the introduction of the EP3 process which replaced the P122 process as my part of the project.

 

I am aware of that valuable research.

 

>The thiocyanate and thioura salts wash out of film just as well as the thiosulfate or mercaptan salts. I have had silver analyses run by X-ray fluorescence to show that the silver - silver complex is completely washed out.

 

Again, you will have to publish to refute the literature which is heavily weighted against you. I did not add Mason's devastating comments on thiocyanate fixation; I thought Haist's were enough for one day.

 

>Yes, I have read Haist's work, no, I don't have a copy. Yes, I can get to a copy in the EK KRL Library in B83 at Kodak Park, 5 miles from here.

 

You could do a much better job of disseminating this wisdom than me - if you wanted to. I can't believe you don't own a copy of the book. I own two, the second set of which Grant gave me when he republished it three or four years ago. My first set contains most of my notes on the errors I found in the book. I don't think Grant ever spent a more depressed hour than when he heard me recite them, and I never alluded to them again. None of us finds evisceration pleasant. He did not incorporate them into the second printing of his book. Yet that does not detract from its value. An interesting paradox.

 

>I have mentioned several points in your joint work that seem to run counter to everything I learned at EK, heard at EK, or have experienced personally through experimental evidence at EK.

 

You're not the only person to have that response. As Howard James wrote about photography in 1966, "the time is past when one research worker could attain mastery in all fields."

 

>I started out by limiting my comments to evidence or making a request for evidence and this has rapidly become personal.

 

What you did, Rowland, was to start a blog on me behind my back. That showed from the start a profound contempt for me and my work. Had you considered me a person worth having a discussion with, you would have contacted me first. And there isn't anyone easier to contact than me. I am accessible. Try me. You might like me.

 

>I did not intend that at all, but it seems that you don't like having anyone make comments that don't agree with or praise your work.

 

Rowland, you know perfectly well one thing: none of the very great men at Kodak I knew would have given a lightweight like me one second of their time had it not been obvious that I had a profound desire to learn and some ability to grasp what they had to say.

 

>I recommend that you try to get a copy of "Journey: 75 Years of Kodak Research".

 

My copy is inscribed to me from Grant. Did you know that he was not just a contributor, but the principal editor?

 

>In it you will find the names some of the most famous EK people, and some of the ones you should have talked to are listed there. Indeed they have their own chapters. You will find, for example that the most senior and respected researcher was not T. H. James as you seem to infer, but rather was Dr. George Lucky. George was a "Research Fellow". Dr James was a very respected and important researcher, but by no means the most senior, nor the only one at EK. As I remember, neither Grant nor I are even mentioned in the book, even though we both became Research Associates. You had to be quite a bit above that level to merit mention in this book.

 

And now you're denigrating Howard James? That I don't like. He can't defend himself. At least I can.

 

>Bill, you have dropped a lot of names. I know virtually all of those people on a first name basis, met with many of them daily,

 

Believe me when I say this Row, they were all a lot nicer than you.

 

>You are a hobbyist who has done a remarkable service, with a few tiny unsupported potentially erronious statements that I'm trying to clear up. They are not serious, but I wanted clarification and to present the alternative in a better light than you portrayed it and based on personal experimental data.

 

Then you should have contacted me.

 

>In response, you have attacked me personally and in general taken the criticism poorly.

 

I was not predisposed to courtesy, given the sneakiness of your proceedings.

 

>If you show me to be wrong, I will say "I'm sorry, but I'm wrong" and that will be the good grace I would hope from you in the case that you are proven wrong.

 

I think we both know that there is no right or wrong here. The truth lies in a continuum around the middle, as it must, in this particular branch of science. Simple conceptions of Right or Wrong belong to blogs, not to photographic science.

 

>Well, I re-read some parts of the KRL history and did indeed find the team of Haist, King, and Pupo mentioned with regards to dry processing on page 101. Sorry, I had forgotten that and missed it in rechecking earlier.

 

Now you know what I go through all the time.

 

So let's have some new fixers! In the 25 years since Grant wrote, there must be some better chemicals. Let's find them, and try them out! One laughable possible paradox would be that you would fix in a mercaptan, and then give a controlled afterbath in thiosulfate, to stablilize the image. There must be a better way.

[rowland_mowrey]

In one of his posts, Bill Troop has asked me 'where are your publications, your books, your research' (paraphrased here for brevity). I think I should clarify this for Bill.

 

Here goes. I have 15 patents on process research, over 40 proprietary internal 'inventions', an acceptance letter for a 6 article series in Darkroom Techniques on color system engineering from David Jay, the editor (part of which is in 4 threads here in very condensed form) and which was never published for several reasons. The reasons were that David Jay left DT, then DT ceased publication, and finally I had little time while still working to do the articles justice.

 

In addition, I gave one talk to The International Congress of Photography. And, I helped Grant Haist edit the very book that A&T constantly refer to in their book.

 

If Bill doubts any of this, I will be glad to offer proof in terms of acceptance letters, patent cover pages, and etc.

 

Now, he has shown us that my point #1 was pure speculation on his part. I have shown by extensive laboratory experiment that my point #2 does not happen. The reference here: 'www.screensound.gov.au' supports my point #3. Therefore, there is no question that these statements are unsound on the part of A&T.

 

The bottom line is that acid stop baths and fixers are safe to use. They will yield better consistancy and uniformity from process to process, having proven that in the lab as well by experimentation.

 

I do suggest that one use a non hardening fix bath and that for color, one must use a bleach, blix or fix with a pH of about 6.5.

 

I do not recommend the use of any aldehyde hardener, contrary to what is suggested in A&T and implied by Bill Troop above. I have supplied a formaldehyde hardener formula previously upon request, and I will do so in the future with the understanding that it is not a preferred way to go about hardening film or paper.

 

My super fixer is posted above for those that wish to see what a power fixer can do. It is safe to use, but is a powerful fogging agent, and has a higher toxicity level than most other fixers. I have mentioned this before, but Bill Troops claims of 'death' are apparently vastly overstated based on chemical evidence. After all, we did test these solutions in the lab before getting the patent. No one died while adjusting the pH of our Blixes. Silver was removed from the coating to satisfactory levels, as determined by quantitative analysis. The reference to the contrary by Bill Troop was regarding stabilization processes with no wash or reduced wash and was apparently taken out of context from Haist.

 

Certain thio ethers and thiol compounds can be added to any fix for greater activity, and are used with no harm or odor in EK color processes contrary to Bill Troops assertions otherwise. I cannot discuss these proprietary ingredients for obvious reasons, but if you want evidence read the labels on the bottles of E6 chemistry.

 

I suggest that we now close these arguments. The issues deserve a rest as do we. I thank Bill for his post indicating that he appears to have used hypothetical statements as real observations with no supporting evidence.

 

With best wishes to all.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

Bill;

 

It seems you were busy writing as well as me. And in your usual fashion.

 

Your response to the following quote of me from your post is not correct in any way.

 

I believe Howard James to be a respected and honored member of the Research labs, and will remain so in my memory of him. It is again you who put words into my mouth. I merely stated that George Lucky was the highest ranking research scientist as stated in the book I referenced. I never denigrated him in any way whatsoever! I merely pointed out that he was not the most senior research scientist. Your copy of the book should show that clearly with the picture of George Lucky and the description of his special position at KRL.

 

"George was a "Research Fellow". Dr James was a very respected and important researcher, but by no means the most senior, nor the only one at EK. As I remember, neither Grant nor I are even mentioned in the book, even though we both became Research Associates. You had to be quite a bit above that level to merit mention in this book.

 

And now you're denigrating Howard James? That I don't like. He can't defend himself. At least I can"

 

You seem able to read dishonorable intent into everything I say, including the original post.

 

It was not sneaky or anything else, it was just another post here.

 

I suggest that you gain a modicum of tact yourself.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

Bill;

 

In one of your posts you asked for proof of my statements.

 

Well, I could never offer you proprietary data, but in any case the data has probably been destroyed in routine records management, but here is the proof that I can offer.

 

1. Kodak, Agfa, Fuji and Ilford to name a few still recommend the use of a stop bath in many processes. In addition, Jobo recommends the use of a stop bath with their drum processors. So, every time you see the words 'stop bath' in a process recommendation from EK at least, it is indirect evidence of the work of my coworkers and myself having proven the lack of merit in the hypotheses that stop baths cause problems.

 

2. Such a monumental series of 'discoveries' as you state in your book would be big news in all areas of photographic science and technology, but instead it remains a series of hypotheses that have pretty much been debunked by researchers. I do admit that they are valid as hypotheses to question with regards to processing, but when examined carefully, no proof has been forthcoming to establish them as fact.

 

3. Millions of photographers over the span of nearly 100 years have used stop baths and acid fixes and have reported no serious problems. Yes, people have said one thing or another about stop baths, acid fixers, and etc., but proof, hard proof never follows. Many researchers have tried and failed.

 

Thats about it.

 

Ron Mowrey

[bill_troop1]

>In one of his posts, Bill Troop has asked me 'where are your publications, your books, your research' (paraphrased here for brevity).

 

No, rather, paraphrased to get away from the point. I know you have some deuxieme echelon publications and patents that are not of the slightest interest either to me or anyone else in black and white photography. I asked you where your publications were that would back up the claims you have made.

 

To this you have no made no response.

 

Row, where are those publications?

 

Failing that test, I have asked you to comment in more detail about your supposed experiments.

 

You have offered nothing. Could this be because you already know that there was a fault in your experiments? (Like testing at the wrong pH? Nothing to be ashamed of there. Photochem history is littered with such stories. It's the mistakes that make the most interesting stories.)

 

>If Bill doubts any of this, I will be glad to offer proof

 

I don't doubt any of it, and I never said I did. What I doubt is that you can offer the slightest proof of any of the assertions you have made here regarding fixers and stop baths. Reciting your background - none of which is in black and white photochemistry - does not constitute an adequate standard of scientific proof, as I am sure you must be the first to admit.

 

>Now, he has shown us that my point #1 was pure speculation on his part.

 

No, Row, not his part. I have sourced it out to Mason and Haist. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. I have also included citations to books you - a self-described expert - don't even own. You have provided no citations.

 

>I have shown by extensive laboratory experiment that my point #2 does not happen.

 

But you have offered no publication or any other documentation that would support these alleged experiments. We need more than fulminations and choleric posturing before we can accept your unsupported conclusions as scientific truth.

 

>The reference here: 'www.screensound.gov.au' supports my point #3.

Therefore, there is no question that these statements are unsound on the part of A&T.

 

Really, Row? I invite everyone to have a look at the link Row points us to. It is the homepage of the National Screen and Sound Archive of Australia. OK. So what? There's nothing on that page that touches upon either Row or any issue we have been discussing here. And that, Row, is the great 'therefore' which lets you say 'there is no question that these statements are unsound on the part of A&T'? That's pretty strong language for a pretty feeble webpage.

 

>The bottom line is that acid stop baths and fixers are safe to use. They will yield better consistancy and uniformity from process to process, having proven that in the lab as well by experimentation.

 

But you have not offered one shred of published documentation for any of the assertions you have made. Maybe that's because the literature does not in fact support you? Row, the literature is against you. How do you suppose I got to the point I did? By _reading_ what people like Haist and Mason were saying, and then by following up with them personally. It's no use for you to tell us that you contributed to Grant's book. What did you do? Proofread a few footnotes? The fact is, you don't have the book, and you don't know what's in it.

 

>I do suggest that one use a non hardening fix bath and that for color, one must use a bleach, blix or fix with a pH of about 6.5.

 

But we are not talking about color. This is a B&W forum.

 

>I do not recommend the use of any aldehyde hardener, contrary to what is suggested in A&T and implied by Bill Troop above. I have supplied a formaldehyde hardener formula previously upon request, and I will do so in the future with the understanding that it is not a preferred way to go about hardening film or paper.

 

I cannot believe that you would still formulate a hardener with formaldehyde, when everyone else is completely opposed to it.

 

>My super fixer is posted above for those that wish to see what a power fixer can do. It is safe to use, but is a powerful fogging agent, and has a higher toxicity level than most other fixers.

 

I'm glad you now admit that. But where is the proof of stability you claim? The established literature suggests otherwise. Your claims are unique and you have offered no support for them. And what other previously undisclosed problems will you next own up to?

 

>After all, we did test these solutions in the lab before getting the patent.

 

But did you? I have read the patent and I do not find a formula corresponding to what you put forth here.

 

>but if you want evidence read the labels on the bottles of E6 chemistry.

 

Known everywhere for its great _stability_, eh?

 

>I suggest that we now close these arguments.

 

Because you're beginning to feel the heat?

 

>The issues deserve a rest as do we.

 

At just the point where you are asked to prove a single one of your assertions, you say the issues deserve a rest. Don't run just now, Row - show us your proof first.

 

>I thank Bill for his post indicating that he appears to have used hypothetical statements as real observations with no supporting evidence.

 

Obviously I do not accept that I said anything of the kind.

 

>I believe Howard James to be a respected and honored member of the Research labs, and will remain so in my memory of him.

 

Then don't denigrate him, merely because you are annoyed that he liked me and supported me. He even gave me a cover blurb, but it appeared too late in the production process to use.

 

>You seem able to read dishonorable intent into everything I say, including the original post.

 

You seem to put it there.

 

>It was not sneaky or anything else, it was just another post here.

 

It was sneaky, and dishonorable, because you never made any effort to contact me, and you never had the courtesy to inform me that you were posting or what you were posting. It was low, Row, very low. It's not as if I'm hard to find. My email address is all over the Internet. There are many, many people in Rochester who have my phone number, and funnily enough, you claim to know them all. Equally funny, never once, in 20 years, has a single one of our mutual friends suggested that I contact you for information of value.

 

>I suggest that you gain a modicum of tact yourself.

 

You gain some honor, and I'll try out the tact.

 

>In one of your posts you asked for proof of my statements.

 

>Well, I could never offer you proprietary data, but in any case the data has probably been destroyed in routine records management,

 

The dog ate my homework? No, that won't fly. Scientists who perform valuable scientific work take steps to preserve it - as you would know had you ever perofrmed any.

 

>but here is the proof that I can offer.

 

And there follows . . . not a single piece of data, not a single measurement, not a single chart, not a single description of methodology, not a single reference to a colleague or senior, not a single reference to a single publication. Nothing approaching or even hinting at a scientific standard of proof. Row, you know what scientific proof is. Now provide it.

 

>but proof, hard proof never follows.

 

We're waiting for yours, Row.

 

Finally, a word about borates. Row, you noted that EK wanted to eliminate borates. It may have thought about it. But have you looked at the formulas for Kodak Fixer, D-76, and XTOL, lately? Borates cannot be replaced by carbonates. Borates can't be replaced by carbonate/bicarbonate buffers of similar pH. Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons why borates are still obligatory in so many developers, in spite of the environmental downside, is that when carbonates are substituted, a deleterious effect on the image is observed? Again, have you spent any time evaluating the image quality of borate buffer systems against carbonate buffer systems of equivalent pH? And if so, please don't tell us again that the dog ate your homework!

[bill_troop1]

FINALLY - - ILLUMINATION

 

Row wrote:

 

>Unfortunately, Grant has been in poor health recently and has suffered a severe stroke.

 

>One last note. Grant Haist is probably not in good health. He was under constant supervision by an attending nurse or companion the last time I saw him and could barely speak. She had to explain the situation to me when I went over to say hello to him, and said that his road to recovery may be long and hard, if possible. He has been spending his summers in Rochester and winters in Florida. I have been reluctant to call his home either here or in Florida due to his condition.

 

OK, Rowland. I called Grant Haist's daughter today and left her a message asking after her father. Just now, 8:45, I got a phone call from Grant Haist.

 

'Reports of my illness have been exaggerated. I am now well and always have been. I have never been under a nurse's care. I have been spending the summer in Michigan as I always do. I am working on a new book. Please don't put that on a blog. It isn't about what you think it is. I can't think where Rowland Mowrey got the idea I was ill. I'll have to have a word with him, the next time I'm in Rochester.'

 

Folks - there's something the matter with this picture. And it isn't Grant Haist's health. I cannot even guess why Rowland Mowrey is spreading rumours of Grant Haist's grave illness. Whatever his motive is, the fact is that Grant is perfectly well. 'I don't know for how long, but I'm fine now and I always have been.' Long may this blessed man, who has given us all so much, live.

[rowland_mowrey]

Bill;

 

Here is your exact quote:

 

"You know I?m asking myself why I?m wasting time arguing with you guys? I love the retrograde ? I believe it should be cherished. I would like to shake hands with someone who still thinks the earth is flat. Row, Kirk, where are your publications? Where are your books? Where is your research?"

 

I took this to mean personal credentials, not the actual experiments themselves. There is no indication to me that you meant experimental results as I had given the experimental details in outline form above. The comment quoted here is so vague and confusing it was easily misinterpreted.

 

You are quite quick in your vehement and sarcastic criticisms of people. You would be a good candidate for being on the show with Donald Trump. I'll try to answer anyhow from memory.

 

This experiment was carried out by a number of people in KRL between 1965 and 1970. My part was done under the direction of Charles Edens (see the 75th anniversary issue of the book I referenced above for Charlie et al). I had just joined the company. The coating type involved was one described in a patent granted to Edens and VanCampen, and so was the process for the most part. (USP 3,582,332) You should be able to find it with your excellent resources. The fixer was a stop fix as described on page 13, the stop was 1 or 2% acetic acid (I cannot remember), and the fix was the same fix as on page 13.

 

The series was a hardening series of color paper on subbed and non subbed support with varying levels of hardener and adhesion. This would typically involve about 10 coatings, 5 subbed and 5 unsubbed. The process was P122 with borate and the same developer at the same pH with carbonate substituted for borate.

 

The paper samples were exposed and processed in a blix process with develop, blix, wash or develop, stop, fix wash bleach, wash, fix, wash, or develop, stop-fix, wash bleach, wash, fix or develop stop, blix, wash.

 

I have described the other details above. The coatings were processed at 68, 75, and 85 deg F and tracked for sensitometry, swell (using a swellometer) and abrasion (using an abrasion meter). Surface pH was tracked using a surface electrode.

 

At the end of the process final wash, all samples were treated with P122 stabilizer which is basically a citrate buffer at an acid pH.

 

All of the coatings without subbing left the support. The unhardened coatings left as free melted gelatin in the developer, but the hardened coatings floated off intact into the developer solution. Coatings with varying levels of hardness and subbed reacted with swell and hardness varying as per the hardner level but they stayed on the support.

 

The coatings without hardener stayed on until the stop fix was entered at which time they blew off the support (we called that blow off), but the hardened coatings survived the entire process depending on temperature.

 

All coatings with hardener survived 68 degrees, some 75, and the 'correct' hardner level survived the 85 degree processes. By survival, I mean that the stop fix was not the culprit. In fact, the lowest hardener level coatings decomposed in the developer. In no case was blow off observed in any process that survived the entire process sequence, but in all cases where there was degradation, it began in the developer due to the alkali and temperature. In no case was 'blowoff' observed to be a problem in carbonate vs kodalk comparisons. The problems were more alkali related, hardner related, or temperature related.

 

Plots were made of swell (y axis) vs process step / total time in process, and secondary notations were made on these plots tracking the surface pH.

 

If you look closely at that URL I gave, you will find the reference to swell.

 

http://www.screensound.gov.au/ScreenSound/Screenso.nsf/Web+Pages/75A9F762AFE49430CA256C4D00110973?OpenDocument

 

This graph looks pretty much like my swellometer measurements. You would have seen this if you had bothered to read some of the posts in this thread.

 

You must also have missed Gary Lewis' post about this: "Wallace Hanson wrote ("The Great Stopbath Squabble";Pop Photo;1975)" in which Hanson could not duplicate any of your claimed problems and his results apparently correlated well with mine.

 

In any event, I ran the color paper experiments, others ran B&W film and paper or color film. The answer was that carbonate has no interaction with stop baths. As a result, from 1970 to present, EK recommends the use of a 1% - 2% stop bath for color paper. Jobo has added that a similar stop should be used for C41 films. Stops are not really needed for reversal films or papers due to their nature but have been used for uniformity in some cases. Ilfochrome uses a pH 1.0 bleach bath immediately following the MQ or first developer with absolutely no harm, but IDK if it is a carbonate developer.

 

Bottom line, Wallace Hanson outside of EK has apparently pretty much validated the multiple lines of inquiry into the effects or interaction between carbonate developers and acidic stop baths that show no effect whatsoever if the coating is hard enough to survive the developer at the temperature chosen. And, I might add that this is the case for all photographic materials from the 60s to the present day. I'm sorry, but I have not been able to read that reference myself.

 

So, that is the best I can reconstruct this from memory. I cannot give exact pH values, or swell values. I'm just not that good at remembering. I cannot draw abrasion tests etc. This is one of the closest looks into internal EK research that I have ever given.

 

I understand that the films were tested for image structure as well as the parameters that I tested for paper. The processes were appropriate for the films being tested.

 

As a result of these tests, all appropriate developers were changed from Borate to Carbonate. To the present day, I still use 1% or 2% stop after the color developer when processing my color and B&W prints, as well as all of my B&W film. (no pinholes or 'blowoff'). The EK RA stop contains sodium sulfite and sodium acetate IIRC. I quit using it as it wasn't necessary to pay that price. I just use acetic acid.

 

The reasoning we came up with to explain the lack of bubbles is this. In the coating, the bubbles, if formed, are micro bubbles capable of diffusing out of the coating. They probably form slowly due to diffusion, as stopping takes up to 30 seconds at 68 deg. OTOH, they may never form, because CO2 is water soluable to a great degree even in acid solutions. The heat generated is miniscule and is apparently not significant. It is similar to the heats of reaction taking place during development, and in any case is moderated by the huge specific heat of water which acts as a cooling agent.

 

Before I ran this experiment, indeed before I joined EK, there was apparently one observation of pinholes in films and papers that went through deep tank machines. In a roller transport, it is my understanding that the bubbles formed as the film or paper rose out of the depths of the tank, or formed at the bottom of the rolls in a dip and dunk processor. The problem was solved long before I got involved, by adjusting the hardener level in the emulsions concerned. It was believed to be due to the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the tank trapping the CO2 in the emulsion and then releasing it as the photographic material rose and the pressure decreased. Charlie Edens told me this story and related it to me as the one example of this effect ever observed. He added that this effect had never been observed in tray processes, or in basket or hanger processes in hard rubbber or stainless steel 3 1/2 gallon tanks.

 

The process temperature was of great concern when C41 and E6 went to 100 deg F, and so therefore image structure was thoroughly studied. There was found to be no correlation between image structure and temperature. In fact, image structure was better at higher temperatures than lower temperatures in some cases. I believe that todays finer grained color films owe their sharpness and grain to the higher temperature process, but that is only my opinion based on some offhand remarks and some conversations with co-workers.

 

So, as you all can see, the researchers at EK did a lot of thought experiments and actual experiments to verify the safety of using a stop bath after a carbonate developer. This is mainly an issue in some B&W developers, RA developer, and C41 developer.

 

It is true that not all developers have eliminated borates. Some even contain phosphates. Fixes use borates as well for reasons pointed out in this thread. However, at the ratio of Color to B&W products on the market, the biggest concern for pollution and the highest priority for EK was in the targeted color processes, not the B&W processes.

 

It has also been pointed out that Dick Henn took another approach to formulating developers with HC110. This is an excellent developer with an entirely new approach to storage stability and alkali as is well known on this forum. Gainers formulas take a similar approach. All are valid, so long as they work to your satisfaction.

 

So, there you have my experimental answer to my comments in the original post, and I stand by the results and the supportive material regarding swell substantiate my observations, as far as my memory can serve.

 

Sarcasm aside Bill, that was a cheap shot. I did that work nearly 40 years ago. The dog did not eat my homework. It was legally disposed of on a rigid schedule adhered to for years by EK and other major companies. Perhaps you have never worked for a large company and faced the problems of data accumulation.

 

The work by all of us on that part of the project was adopted by and is still used by and recommended by EK. You cannot ignore that. And you cannot ignore the billions of dollars of product that used those processes over the years and the millions of satisfied customers.

 

Hope this makes you happy.

 

Ron Mowrey

[bill_troop1]

>This experiment was carried out by a number of people in KRL between 1965 and 1970. My part was done under the direction of Charles Edens (see the 75th anniversary issue of the book I referenced above for Charlie et al). I had just joined the company.

 

You took part in an experiment, you had a small part in it. You had just joined the company.

 

At least 10 years later, in 1979, Haist wrote, 'The use of carbonates in developers may produce blisters in the emulsion layer of the photographic material when this matieral is transferred from the alkaline developer to any [!] acid afterbath, such as an acid stop bath or acid fixing bath. This tendency is increased during processing at other than normal room temperatures, especially under high-temperature processing conditions. The carbonate still retained in the emulsion layer after development reacts with the acid of the afterbaths to produce carbon dioxide gas bubbles, which may then rupture the gelatin of the emulsion layer.'

 

[Haist, I, pp. 243-244.]

 

No footnotes. Haist himself had not heard of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, and was writing with unusual vigour and at unusual length.

 

If you were working on his book, and disagreed with what he said, why did you not let him know?

 

>The coating type involved was one described in a patent granted to Edens and VanCampen, and so was the process for the most part. (USP 3,582,332) You should be able to find it with your excellent resources.

 

I have done so. It is by Bertelson and Glanz, and is assigned to the National Cash Register Company.

 

I can't comment on anything else you have written, because the patent number you have cited is incorrect. I would add that out of the many thousands of footnotes in Grant Haist's book that I have followed up, I have never come across a single incorrect reference. That is a very great testament to Grant's scholarship.

 

>Sarcasm aside Bill, that was a cheap shot. I did that work nearly 40 years ago. The dog did not eat my homework. It was legally disposed of on a rigid schedule adhered to for years by EK and other major companies. Perhaps you have never worked for a large company and faced the problems of data accumulation.

 

What I know is this: had your work been important, you could, and would, have retained the relevant data.

 

>The work by all of us on that part of the project was adopted by and is still used by and recommended by EK. You cannot ignore that.

 

And Haist, knowing this, yet wrote, in a book to which you contributed 'something' - directly the contrary on pp. 243 and 244. He went further: he alludes to the matter again on p. 543 and then gives an entire page to a photo on p. 544, which bears this caption: 'Retciulation is the result of excessive irreversible swelling of the gelatin of the emulsion layer. The fine ruptures can occur during the water rinse or in the stop bath of low salt content following development in an alkaline developer. (Photograph by Grant Haist)'

 

Row, you never heard of problems with stop baths. But Grant not only knew all about them, he was experiencing them in his own work. Please note. Photo by Grant Haist. Of that same daughter I left a message with this afternoon.

 

Who has the larger credibility here?

 

>Hope this makes you happy.

 

>Ron Mowrey

 

No, I am very sad. I want to know why you spread false rumours of Grant's illness. Did you think that would prevent me from speaking to him?

[rowland_mowrey]

Bill;

 

The patent # is correctly 3,582,322. Sorry for the typo, but since this merely describes the generic coating and developer, it has no significant bearing on the experiment itself.

 

Yes, I was new to the company, so therefore the work was closely supervised and approved by senior members of research, and in addition, work by other more senior members of the staff verified these experiments with other products and processes as well. Two of those individuals who vetted my work are featured in the KRL history book.

 

I was not free to keep proprietary information unless EK granted that permission in writing and the documents were itemized. In no case was I allowed to keep documents beyond the expiration date mandated by record retention regulations. You should know this if you had ever worked for a major industrial organization. That material was not mine to keep.

 

As far as Grant is concerned, the last I saw him he was in the care of a nurse or companion after a severe stroke. We spoke at a camera store where I saw him and the nurse/companion at Longridge mall about 5 miles from our home. I have been reluctant to call him, as the individual with him explained that the stroke was severe, that he was undergoing therapy and the recovery might be a long road. I am spreading no rumors.

 

I'm glad to hear he has apparently recovered, so I will give him a call myself. Thanks for the information.

 

The bottom line is that you denigrate everything I have said, even though I have given experimental details of experiments that I ran in person. You have never run those experiments, but have relied on Grant telling you information which, as you said above,

 

"Some influential leading scientists at the end of the 20th century strongly held this conviction. Haist, Mason, Russell are three. There is some inferential basis in the literature to support this, butthere is no explicit, decisive proof. I chose to go out on a limb and advocate what these scientists believed. So far the heat exchange has been visibly demonstrated, but not in film, rather, in the decomposition of my ego. It is undeniable that I took a controversial position. My question to readers is, would you rather I did that, or would you rather I played it safe with conventional wisdom? Believe me, I had my doubts! Up until the moment of publication, I pestered Grant Haist about this. (I couldn't pester Russell; I could no longer find him, and I fear he is no longer with us.) My doubts were removed by Haist. Of all the things he said to me on this topic, the one I remember best is, 'Bill, they can't prove you wrong.' "

 

The key words are "THERE IS NO EXPLICIT, DECISIVE PROOF" in your quote above. This was exactly our position at EK in the 60s, and we set out to prove/disprove the hypothesis set out above. We could not prove it. We were able to disprove it.

 

Here is proof:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/O3wp4.jhtml

 

or here:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/O3wp4.jhtml

 

or here (which gives the option of stop or water)

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/aj3/aj3.jhtml?id=0.1.14.34.9.16.38&lc=en

 

Since there were over 400 hits on the EK site, I went here where there are only about 100:

 

http://ilford.com/html/us_english/search/index.asp?target=stop+bath

 

I like this one:

 

http://www.agfa.com/photo/pdf/products/C-SW16-E16.pdf

 

It is one of over 100 again and gives a nice list of advantages of using a stop bath.

 

Of course, not all of the developers contain carbonate, but these references put up no caution about carbonate being a problem. I doubt if I will find one either.

 

The problem here is your having presented as fact, something for which there is no "explicit, decicive proof" (your words). That was the reason for my initial post, as I had explicit, decisive proof from my own experiments! Please, differentiate between facts and supposition and between what you know, and were told, but have not verified. This is the fundamental basis of scientific research.

 

Also, please stop your villifying me and trying to discredit me. Your comments about the use of formaldehyde in the post above is an example. You recommend the use of aldehydes, and give an aldehyde based hardener in your book. You use glacial acetic acid, thiocyanate, and other toxic chemicals in your formulas. So, in truth we both have mentioned the use of what some consider to be toxic chemistry which is the very nature of conventional photography. Don't point at me as the sole culprit when we both have made similar recommendations. If you feel it is wrong for me to recommend the use of X, then it is equally wrong for you to recommend the use of X. A statement saying "Ron and I have both given formulas for aldehyde based hardeners. While these are toxic and I believe that neither of us would recommend them, we recognize that there are those of you who may at some time need this type of formula for special purposes. Please take all precautionary measures to protect yourselves against any potential hazard". Now, there is a diplomatic courteous method of stating what we have both said.

 

If we have more discussions like that, you and I would not be at such odds with each other. I mean no ill will. I stated that in my original post "with apologies to A&T" and I meant it sincerely.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

Bill;

 

I saw Grant at Ritz photo in the summer of last year. He was with a woman. I went over to him and began speaking, but he was hesitant and slow to respond. The woman pulled me aside and told me that story about his illness while he finished a transation at the counter.

 

He had been spending time here in Rochester in the summer, and in Naples Fla. in the winter, so he must now be spending time with his daughter in Michigan. I have been loathe to call him since I ran into him, but I have called both phone #s, and have not gotten him or anyone at either number.

 

His number in Rochester is working, but in Naples is not, indicating to me that he is 'in residence' in Rochester at this time.

 

My previous call to him was in the spring of the year before, one year earlier, when we were to go out photographing spring flowers in the park. When I called, he said he didn't feel up to it and would call back. He did not, and I was unable to contact him until I ran into him at the mall. He asked us to visit him in Fla, several years ago, but on our last visit there it was in the summer and we were unable to go and take him up on his offer to 'take some beautiful sunset pictures from the dock here'.

 

By no means would Grant refer to me as Rowland. I never, ever used that at EK. Grant always called me Ron.

 

That is the story as far as I know it. Please have him call me in Rochester from his daughters or wherever he is staying then. Have him call collect. I am quite curious as to what is going on as well and I'm totally mystified.

 

Ron Mowrey

[bill_troop1]

>The patent # is correctly 3,582,322. Sorry for the typo, but since this merely describes the generic coating and developer, it has no significant bearing on the experiment itself.

 

First you cite the wrong patent. Then, when that is pointed out, you cite what may be the correct one - who knows, I'm not any longer interested in checking. Because you now say it has no significant bearing anyway. So why did you cite it in the first place?

 

>Yes, I was new to the company, so therefore the work was closely supervised and approved by senior members of research, and in addition, work by other more senior members of the staff verified these experiments with other products and processes as well.

 

I don't think you understood what you were doing. You were obviously a very small cog in a very big machine. If any of the work you were engaged upon in the 1960s and early 1970s had had the slightest validity, it would not have been directly contradicted by Mason in 1975 and Haist, in four pages, in 1979, and again, in 2000. Moreover, your involvement in photoscience is so slight that you don't even own these foundational books.

 

>Two of those individuals who vetted my work are featured in the KRL history book.

 

I no longer believe your work was vetted by anyone. You are not now in a position where anything you say has the slightest credibility. I will require original documents to check any claim you may make in the future.

 

>As far as Grant is concerned, the last I saw him he was in the care of a nurse or companion after a severe stroke. We spoke at a camera store where I saw him and the nurse/companion at Longridge mall about 5 miles from our home. I have been reluctant to call him, as the individual with him explained that the stroke was severe, that he was undergoing therapy and the recovery might be a long road. I am spreading no rumors.

 

Grant tells me he has never had a nurse and has never been ill. You made up this disgusting story about one of my closest friends and upset me and several others to a very great degree. Grant Haist is alive and well. He is 82. He is not now sick and never has been sick.

 

>I'm glad to hear he has apparently recovered, so I will give him a call myself. Thanks for the information.

 

He has not recovered. He was never ill.

 

>The bottom line is that you denigrate everything I have said,

 

Because none of it is true. None of what you have said technically is true, none of what you have said personally is true.

 

>even though I have given experimental details of experiments that I ran in person. You have never run those experiments,

 

You can no longer ask anyone to believe that you have run anything.

 

>This was exactly our position at EK in the 60s, and we set out to prove/disprove the hypothesis set out above. We could not prove it. We were able to disprove it.

 

You did some work in the 1960s that was not recognized in any scientific publication. It was not reported in Grant Haist's book written in 1979. Grant Haist's book states the opposite. Those are the facts, that is the history of photographic science. That is the truth, as near as we can get to it. This nonsense that you are subjecting us to, from an unknown, third level lab operator, is not credible.

 

>Here is proof:

 

And you cite some web references. How about a serious publication? How about an author, with proper citations? How about someone recognized in the scientific literature? How about some actual data? A published paper? But no. Nothing. What we have is that the 1979 and 2000 editions of Haist's 'Modern Photographic Processing' directly contradict everything you say.

 

>The problem here is your having presented as fact, something for which there is no "explicit, decicive proof" (your words).

 

Rowland, you have had to do a lot of backtracking here.

 

Now I'm going to do some of my own. I'm going to take back anything I said that moderated my position. I deeply regret having said anything which compromised with it. And I deeply regret ever having taken you seriously. I was so taken aback by your attack, and so impressed with your purported credentials and persuasive manner, and, was frankly, so very far away from the subject, that I unwisely gave ground before I had thought the issue through. I know reclaim that ground. But I don't expect anyone to expect me to discuss it with an established fantasist.

 

>That was the reason for my initial post, as I had explicit, decisive proof from my own experiments!

 

You have not provided proof of anything. You don't even know the single, overriding fact which helps explain your total confusion on this issue: that colour films are hardened in a manner completely different from black and white films.

 

The proof is Grant Haist's photo on page 544. You do not even approach that level of proof.

 

>Also, please stop your villifying me and trying to discredit me.

 

You are the one who is villfying and discrediting people. You tried to villify and discredit me behind my back. Then you tried it out on Howard James and Grant Haist. You concocted a story that Grant Haist had had a stroke and was unable to talk to anybody, hoping that I would not call him and ask, 'who in the world is Rowland Mowrey? What basis does he have to disagree with you?'

 

>Your comments about the use of formaldehyde in the post above is an example. You recommend the use of aldehydes, and give an aldehyde based hardener in your book. You use glacial acetic acid, thiocyanate, and other toxic chemicals in your formulas. So, in truth we both have mentioned the use of what some consider to be toxic chemistry which is the very nature of conventional photography. Don't point at me as the sole culprit when we both have made similar recommendations. If you feel it is wrong for me to recommend the use of X, then it is equally wrong for you to recommend the use of X. A statement saying "Ron and I have both given formulas for aldehyde based hardeners. While these are toxic and I believe that neither of us would recommend them, we recognize that there are those of you who may at some time need this type of formula for special purposes. Please take all precautionary measures to protect yourselves against any potential hazard". Now, there is a diplomatic courteous method of stating what we have both said.

 

Except for one thing. It is incorrect to recommend formaldehyde as you have done. It is correct to recommend glutaraldehyde or succinaldehyde as I have done. I am so used to thinking of myself as a supplicant at the feet of genius, that for a moment I considered you an authority. I find now that, little as I understand about photochemistry, I know a great deal more as to the larger picture, and much detail, than you do.

 

>I stated that in my original post "with apologies to A&T" and I meant it sincerely.

 

I do not believe that you understand the word apology. If you did you would realize that you owe a very great apology to me, and a very, very greater one to Grant Haist, about whom you have said unforgiveable things.

 

>I saw Grant at Ritz photo in the summer of last year. He was with a woman. I went over to him and began speaking, but he was hesitant and slow to respond. The woman pulled me aside and told me that story about his illness while he finished a transation at the counter.

 

You can't now ask anyone to believe that. It simply isn't true.

 

>He had been spending time here in Rochester in the summer,

 

Grant spends the summers in Michigan, and has done so for at least a decade. He then makes a brief appearance in Rochester, but only in the late autumn.

 

>so he must now be spending time with his daughter in Michigan.

 

No. His daughter does not live in Michigan and is not now with him.

 

>His number in Rochester is working, but in Naples is not, indicating to me that he is 'in residence' in Rochester at this time.

 

Yet one more illustration of your carelessness in evaluating indicia. The number in Rochester is always on, year after year. Grant Haist is not in Rochester.

 

>When I called, he said he didn't feel up to it and would call back.

 

Maybe he just didn't want to see you. After everything that has transpired on this thread, I could well believe it. But why should I now fall into the trap of assuming that anything you say is true?

 

>By no means would Grant refer to me as Rowland. I never, ever used that at EK. Grant always called me Ron.

 

Correct. I have examined my transcription. 'I know Ron.' 'I'll have to call him up the next time I go to Rochester.' As far as I can tell, that is the single truthful statement you have made on this thread.

 

>That is the story as far as I know it.

 

You mean, as far as you have fabricated it.

 

>Please have him call me in Rochester from his daughters or wherever he is staying then. Have him call collect. I am quite curious as to what is going on as well and I'm totally mystified.

 

Ron, I'm not going to have Grant or anyone else call you. You'll hear from him when, or if, he chooses to make contact. And when he does, he won't need to make it a collect call. Don't you see what you're doing? You're still at it - planting the assumption that Grant Haist is so destitute that he can't afford to call you.

 

But I am going to pay the price of getting an even worse reputation for indiscretion than I already have, because it's the only way I can settle this matter once for all, by publishing my transcription of part of the conversation I had with Grant Haist last night.

 

GH: Where did he ever get the idea that I was ill? I don't know.

 

BT: I - maybe he's - losing his mind.

 

GH. Hmm. I don't think you can say that. Can you, on a blog? Can you say that on a blog of some sort?

 

BT: Ye-e-e-s.

 

GH. Well, I don't know. He's misled. That's the word these days, from the presidential debates. ... I'm OK. I'm fine, I don't know how long I'll be that way, but I'm fine and have been fine. And that's the word.

 

I have one final (I hope) comment. In the few lines transcribed above, you will notice that Grant uses the phrase 'I don't know' three times. That, indeed, is his favourite phrase, and one he uses constantly. And so it is with all the great geniuses in every field that I have ever interrogated: 'I don't know'.

 

It is only the low level, insecure people, whose primary goal is to establish their authority, who are afraid of those three words, which are the common denominator of all wise people in science or art or philosophy or any other field.

[rowland_mowrey]

Bill;

 

I know that Grant has a home in Rochester and one in Naples Fla. I have the phone # and addresses to both. Up to about two years ago, I knew that he was spending his winters in Fla, and summers in Rochester. I have seen him here and talked to him on several occasions. We have met or called each other on an irregular basis since Grant retired in the 80s.

 

His number in Fla is disconnected now, but still listed. Probably due to his travels, as I believe that he told me he had it disconnected from April to October. At one time, he supplied me with his schedule of trips back and forth so that we could keep in touch.

 

You are right. I do owe him an apology if your story is true. I saw him and the 'nurse/companion or whatever' and that is the story she gave me. I did talk to him at Ritz photo and we parted. I have been unable to contact him since to check up on his health.

 

I do not know his daughter. I have seen pictures of her that Grant has taken and that is about it.

 

You can consider my role at EK in any way you wish. The fact remains that I have those patents, publications, and presentations that I mentioned above. Go ahead and run my reputation down if you need to build yours up. It will not take away from mine. I think this thread will give a good laugh to us all at the KRL retirees lunch at the end of October, if anyone there even knows who you are.

 

I have no proof that you talked to Grant either. So what, no big deal. I really would like to talk to him. Collect if he wishes. That does not imply impoverishment, it is merely a courtesy. Something that you do not seem to understand. I think it interesting that you would not pass along to him my request for a call.

 

I didn't have those books you love so much for several reasons. First, I knew almost all of the authors personally and could ask them questions directly. Second, when I couldn't talk to them, I had the library at KRL. Third, there were other, primary resources that I went to for information on development, fixing, bleaching, and etc. These were the people at the forefront of the ever moving field of R&D.

 

Finally, you completely bypassed the experiment that we conducted at EK, and waved it away as inconsequential and you retracted your own words in your last post. Well, go ahead. That does not change the facts presented in the web references that I gave, and that others gave which also seem to refute you. You can try to cover it up but you cannot whether I'm involved or not. Someday, someone will come up with additional proof, and this will come back to haunt you. Mark my words.

 

I'm looking forward to talking to Grant and getting this matter straightened out. And, if I am proven wrong, I will step forward and admit it with apologies to Grant. After all, I respect and like Grant and treasure the memories I have of our times spent together.

 

Ron Mowrey

[bill_troop1]

This determined fantasist just won't give up.

 

>I know that Grant has a home in Rochester and one in Naples Fla. I have the phone # and addresses to both.

 

So much anyone can get off the Internet. What you won't be able to find is his Michigan number.

 

>Up to about two years ago, I knew that he was spending his winters in Fla, and summers in Rochester.

 

Grant hasn't spent his summers in Rochester for a very long time. Ten, fifteen years.

 

>I have seen him here and talked to him on several occasions. We have met or called each other on an irregular basis since Grant retired in the 80s.

 

In a parallel universe?

 

>You are right. I do owe him an apology if your story is true. I saw him and the 'nurse/companion or whatever' and that is the story she gave me. I did talk to him at Ritz photo and we parted. I have been unable to contact him since to check up on his health.

 

If my story is true. You have some nerve, as they say around here. Now let's look at the nurse. First she was a nurse. Then she was a nurse/companion. Now she is a 'nurse/companion or whatever'.

 

Ron, Grant is married. He has a wife. Her name is - well, I don't think I'll give out any information that you can use to make your fantastic deceits more plausible. I only risk providing this new information to make clear to the public that that you don't know that Grant remarried quite some years ago. It is clear that you have never been introduced to Mrs. Haist. It is clear that you have never spoken to Mrs. Haist. Mrs. Haist never told you that Grant was ill, you never saw Grant ill, and frankly, because you insist this happened in the summer, I don't think you ever encountered these people at all in recent years, for the simple reason that they are never in Rochester in the summer.

 

>I think this thread will give a good laugh to us all at the KRL retirees lunch at the end of October, if anyone there even knows who you are.

 

I think, by now, they know who you are. And I don't think they're any too comfortable with that.

 

>I have no proof that you talked to Grant either.

 

If it is even conceivable that anyone here, besides Ron, doubts what I said, please email me. I have the proof. I knew I'd need it. I recorded the conversation.

 

>I didn't have those books you love so much for several reasons. First, I knew almost all of the authors personally and could ask them questions directly. Second, when I couldn't talk to them, I had the library at KRL. Third, there were other, primary resources that I went to for information on development, fixing, bleaching, and etc. These were the people at the forefront of the ever moving field of R&D.

 

Such pompousness. Ron, you don't have the books because you aren't much of a scientist and because you're nothing of a scholar.

 

>Finally, you completely bypassed the experiment that we conducted at EK, and waved it away as inconsequential and you retracted your own words in your last post. Well, go ahead.

 

I bypassed your 'experiment', which you have utterly failed to document, because (1) nothing that you said about it convinced me that it had actually taken place and (2) because the men who really did count for something at Kodak, such as Haist and James, took no account of 'it' and disputed what you claim are its 'conclusions'.

 

>You can try to cover it up but you cannot whether I'm involved or not. Someday, someone will come up with additional proof, and this will come back to haunt you. Mark my words.

 

Yeah. Right. And Elvis is living in Rochester with a nurse/companion, but is too ill to talk to anyone except Ron Mowrey.

 

>I'm looking forward to talking to Grant and getting this matter straightened out. And, if I am proven wrong, I will step forward and admit it with apologies to Grant. After all, I respect and like Grant and treasure the memories I have of our times spent together.

 

Gotta admit you have a gift for gab, Ron. I can understand why you would treasure your memories. After all, they're hand-made.

 

I am reminded of the famous motto attributed to Sam Goldwyn: 'Sincerity is the most important thing. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.'