developers, contrast and VC paper

do changes in developer affect VC paper contrast at all?

Joe wrote:
do changes in developer affect VC paper contrast at all?

To a small degree.

Mike King wrote:
If you mean two-part developers like Dr. Beers or split development, the
answer is probably. Some VC papers are developer incorporated and would
exhibit much less difference in contrasts. I have seen a contrast
difference using Selectol-soft versus Dektol but wasn't looking to alter
contrast only image tone.

I thought I read somewhere that they dont affect VC contrast, but I
couldnt find the reference so I asked the question. I usually use
Forte, which supposedly doesnt have incorporated developers. I was
actually thinking of varying levels of HQ, whether that has much
effect. More specifically, if it doesnt have much effect, could a
person still make a normal or higher than normal contrast image on VC
paper using Ansco 130 Adams version, or Ansco 120 (for example).



It's a good question, but with the ability to change contrast in very fine
gradations built into the paper the question then becomes more like why
bother unless you are looking to force contrast at one end of the range or
the other.

Joe wrote:

Mike King wrote:
If you mean two-part developers like Dr. Beers or
split development, the answer is probably.

I thought I read somewhere that they dont affect VC contrast,
I was actually thinking of varying levels of HQ, whether that has
much effect. .... using Ansco 130 Adams version, or Ansco 120 ...


Pure coincidence. I'm about to test some old VC paper I
shelved years ago when I switched to Graded. I've 25 sheet
packs of 5 x 7 Kentmere and Forte on their way from Freestyle.
I test and proof using 5 x 7. I'll have to dim the lights; VC paper.
Ansco 120 and Beer's A are the same developer save for
dilution. Beer's A is a metol, sulfite, carbonate, low contrast
developer. Beer's B is the hydroquinone portion. It really
works; very noticably. I'd be surprised if it did not so
with VC paper's as well.
I've not worked with 130 but know that Adams' split leaves
the HQ to be added as needed. I'll need some glycine for
that one. Dan

wrote in message
ups.com...
Joe wrote:

Mike King wrote:
If you mean two-part developers like Dr. Beers or
split development, the answer is probably.

I thought I read somewhere that they dont affect VC
contrast,
I was actually thinking of varying levels of HQ, whether
that has
much effect. .... using Ansco 130 Adams version, or
Ansco 120 ...


Pure coincidence. I'm about to test some old VC paper I
shelved years ago when I switched to Graded. I've 25
sheet
packs of 5 x 7 Kentmere and Forte on their way from
Freestyle.
I test and proof using 5 x 7. I'll have to dim the lights;
VC paper.
Ansco 120 and Beer's A are the same developer save for
dilution. Beer's A is a metol, sulfite, carbonate, low
contrast
developer. Beer's B is the hydroquinone portion. It really
works; very noticably. I'd be surprised if it did not so
with VC paper's as well.
I've not worked with 130 but know that Adams' split
leaves
the HQ to be added as needed. I'll need some glycine for
that one. Dan

Have you investigated how much difference there is in
Dmax? If not much then the developer is truely affecting
the contrast.
The proof would be to print a step wedge on the test
paper and see how many steps show up with various
developers.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Richard Knoppow wrote:

wrote

Joe wrote:

Mike King wrote:
If you mean two-part developers like Dr. Beers or
split development, the answer is probably. Mike

I thought I read somewhere that they dont affect VC
contrast,
I was actually thinking of varying levels of HQ, whether
that has
much effect. .... using Ansco 130 Adams version, or
Ansco 120 ... Joe


Pure coincidence. I'm about to test some old VC paper I
shelved years ago when I switched to Graded. I've 25
sheet
packs of 5 x 7 Kentmere and Forte on their way from
Freestyle.
I test and proof using 5 x 7. I'll have to dim the lights;
VC paper.
Ansco 120 and Beer's A are the same developer save for
dilution. Beer's A is a metol, sulfite, carbonate, low
contrast
developer. Beer's B is the hydroquinone portion. It really
works; very noticably. I'd be surprised if it did not so
with VC paper's as well.
I've not worked with 130 but know that Adams' split
leaves
the HQ to be added as needed. I'll need some glycine for
that one. Dan

Have you investigated how much difference there is in
Dmax? If not much then the developer is truely affecting
the contrast.
The proof would be to print a step wedge on the test
paper and see how many steps show up with various
developers. Richard Knoppow


I've not made any exact quantitative Dmax determinations.
Visualy, a print's change in contrast twixt Beer's 1 and 7 is very
evident. I've a step wedge and intend to be more exact. Some old
paper and new coming from Freestyle ought to be tested. I'll run
a series of tests.
Why the change in contrast with addition of the hydroquinone
portion? The metol only Beer's 1, Ansco 120, produces very good
blacks. Although the ph is high enough for some hydroquinone
activity there is no affect on tone or Dmax. So, what explains
the increase in contrast? It works, noticeably.
All that is from somewhat casual observation. Beer's A, Ansco
120, and Beer's B are both easy Home Brews. Another VC
developer is Adam's split A-B Ansco 130. Edwal's TST
off-the-shelf is yet another. Dan