kirk_teetzel

Larry,

They've compaired it to Super-XX (4142), which is different than Double-X (5222)

I've been plaing around with it and developing it with PMK. I agree with what somebody said before that it want's more light than ISO200; at least from what I've seen.

I tried some 5222 in PMK but I overdeveloped it; I assumed it to be similar to Bergger but...nope. 12min was waaay too long. I'll try it again when I put some on order next week.

I've run 5222 in HC-110(b), Perceptol and Diafine.

XM, here's some of my flickr stuff with DoubleX

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirkt/tags/eastmandoublex5222/

I've found, at least with PMK, that if the negative is even slightly darker than intended, that scanning through it gives me some heavy grain.

Of course, my scanning techniques can be called to question.

"Enters religion as there's no environmental tie-in to "any" ecosystem other then just plopped in the middle of it; all historical migratory behavior over the many tens of thousands of years taken into consideration going back to Leakey's Lucy."

argumentum ad ignorantiam

What does wanting or not wanting of your children have to do with categorizing porn and/or art?

The fear of an industry is not a logical argument for its placement in the art world.

Is the point being made that it isn't fine art becuase it lacks morals (as defined by Judeo/Christian ideals)? Or because it's a bad industry?

How can one insert porn into the category of fine art when the definition of fine art isn't even defined?

Is industrial design art? How about Raymond Loewy?

Is architecture art? How about Frank Lloyd Wright?

Is landscaping art? How about Frederick Law Olmsted?

Personally, I view porn as being created for consumption whereas art is created for aesthetics and, therefore, porn is just extreme pop-culture; consume it and forget about it. It's value is right up there with Britney Spears's music, Reality TV, and anything else designed to get you into buy-use-discard-buy cycle.

Religion is not the basis of morality, morality is the basis of religion. Therefore, morals can exist without religion which follows that one does not need religion to have morals and further, one cannot use the argument that any morals that exist today are a result of religion.

Morality is a relative term defined by communities.

No disrespect, but the argument of "do it because of 170 years of R&D" just isn?t logical. Photography has been evolving throughout its life, and therefore it isn?t the same as when it started. Photography as we know it now is much more recent, wouldn?t you agree? I?m not sure of exact dates, but maybe more like the 1970s? Emulsions are pretty much the same and, even though developers have changed, the basic chemicals comprising them haven?t and their understanding is pretty static as well. With that, the modern practice, based on R&D, is that a stop bath really isn?t necessary from; what I understand.

As said about critical work; using a stop bath would be cheap insurance and remove developing time as a variable for the end result.

<p><a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/84/235811504_59d974ccf0.jpg" width="500" height="329" alt="boyonbeach" /></a></p>

<p>Minolta HiMatic 7s - I ran some Double X (5222) in PMK for way too long. After some adjustments, I found I really like it.</p>

Thanks Jim.

My intention was to use 7.5 as well and, by adding salt, effectivly getting a Perceptol 2 bath. I love Perceptol and the simplicity of a two bath seemed like an attractive combo.

I'm very interested in this developer and was wondering if there are others

using it that could offer some insight about it's longevity, pros, cons,

perfered films, etc.

Has anybody added sodium chloride and if so, did you enjoy the results?

Thanks in advance.

Somehow, someway it is overdeveloped.

You can barely see the image, and even the frame #s are very dark sound like overdevelopment to me.

I've been playing with different developers and that is EXACTLY the result I get when I over-develop film.

With 600ml the Patterson tank is just about full and I've found that when developing that way, the developer doesn't seem to agitate well. I will sometimes get very different results between the two rolls of film.

If you are agitating too quickly, maybe the developer hasn't been able to mix very well and therefore remains concentrated on the bottom. That, coupled with a 10sec 2x pre-development is causing over-development.

<p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/46/191569202_ddd0370759.jpg" width="500" height="319" alt="File1120" /></a> </p>

<p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/72/191569204_7531c74b3a.jpg" width="500" height="325" alt="File1123" /></a> </p>

<p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/67/191559025_13a7888cbf.jpg" width="500" height="336" alt="File1168" /></a> </p>

Larry,

What time did you use for HC-110? I can't find any info on that combo.