<quote who=Jim MacKenzie] date=[27/04/2006 15:23/> > PMK is cheap and it lasts a long time so even if it were no better and > no worse than anything else, I'd find it to be a good addition to my > arsenal. From what I have read, it's best used with older films like FP4 etc.. Not so much with Delta 400 and 'newer' films. Has this been your experience? The more I shoot, the more I start to realize that is what's most important to me in a film developer is (in order) 1) Speed 2) Shelf life 3) Grain Because in all honesty, and I might get spanked for saying this, while there is a difference between say Rodinal and DDX (thanks snoopy) using a MF camera and printed at 8x10, I can't see a huge difference and my girlfriend didn't know what the hell I was talking about when I said there was more grain in the Rodinal shot. She was too busy looking at the picture! The more I shoot and print, and the more I show my prints to people, the more I realize that 99.9% of what people notice is the image, not the grain, sharpness or tonality. The vast majority of that comes when you snap the image. Maybe I am wrong, correct me if you think so. But that's my impressions. What most concerns me is loss of film speed. I need that speed since I hand-hold a Hassy and I tend to shoot inside, near windows or when the light is best (dusk/dawn). Shelf life: only because I've been burned by XTOL and once by a DOA bottle of DDX. So when I read all about PMK I think to myself: "5% difference between it and the other and of that for a total of the .1% difference that developer makes in the total image output. J -- Justin F. Knotzke jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.shampoo.ca ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.