[pure-silver] Re: Hypo eliminator damages silver image
- From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 03:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Hypo eliminator damages silver image
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:12:58 -0700
> I agee with you that one should not stop at older
> research. I do believe that its a good idea to go back to
> original sources, but this is not the same thing. I've found
> cases where a paper or article was followed up with a letter
> or correction even in the next issue of the journal.
Agreed. Also, pay attention to the quality of the information obtained
from various sources. The internet is a mixed batch. Photo.net? APUG?
Sorry, but I can't use what I see there to decide anything critically
important for me. Dignan's newsletter archive? I don't know, you
decide. No matter what you cite, if it's clearly questionable to an
average skilled person in the field, some might question your
judgement to trust that source without checking with the primary
source. You better be able to back it up yourself in that case.
> I also point out that much of Kodak's published research data was
> intended to provide information for practical application. Since I
> am familiar with the Carlton and Crabtree paper on D-76. They knew a
> problem existed and found a way to eliminate it on a practical basis
> but did not understand the chemical basis for the problem. I don't
> know for certain when this was discovered but it was probably not
> for twenty years.
Kodak people make a VERY wide range of publications. On one hand they
do very high quality analytical chemistry and electrochemistry. On the
other hand they somehow manage to get U.S. Patents that are nothing
more than the second infusion of a spent tea from old books. The
"inventor" might not have been aware of it, so I won't name it here,
but I was very displeased to find that patent (which is commercialized
as a product). To be fair to Kodak, I've seen some non-Kodak patents
that should be very questionable to patent examiners but was granted
US Patents (and to my knowledge never commercialized, for a very good
reason, and in this case the patent is rather innocuous). I thought
they must've wasted a lot of company money in order to get promoted or
something.
Anyway, back to the real issue. I don't think Crabtree knew what the
problem was at that point. Mechanism of oxidation of hydroquinone was
very carefully studied by Weissberger, James and others all from Kodak
Rochester Lab in mid 1930s. Their work provided intellectually very
satisfying understing as well as practical guidance for sulfite's
preserving action. However, James and Weissberger papers are written
in highly technical language so that only competent chemists would
understand them and could apply them to the real world problems.
It is a pity that some relatively recent darkroom cookbooks
incorrectly asserted that borax was the problem. I spoke to at least
one author of such a book with this statement but he did not know
about the mistake. I could only encourage him to publish the second
edition and gave him a list of things to consider.
> One problem with finding more recent research is that one
> must search for it directly rather than just follow up
> citations in books. The books just don't get written,
> perhaps because the state of understanding changes too fast.
One fact is that very few people can afford to write a book on such a
matter. Market is shrinking, and it would also sell more to publish a
lot of BS that people like to hear (and believe) than some truth that
may prove what they believed to be wrong. (Though I think more of a
serious problem is that a lot of authors don't know what are BS.)
--
Ryuji Suzuki
"Keep a good head and always carry a light camera."
=============================================================================================================
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.
Other related posts:
