Whatever happened Fred Picker?
Daniel Grenier
to their newsletter from day-one; and I even went to Newfane on a couple
occasions back in the early 80s. I saw Fred Picker's Zone VI taken from a
small, excellent supplier of good things to what is now an undefined,
fuzzy, and odd fitting segment of Calumet. I was sorry to see the demise of
Zone VI as I knew it but does anyone know what happened to Fred Picker? He
seems to have disappeared from the photo scene. Just curious.... Thanks and
happy Y2K. Daniel G.
Brian Ellis
to Calumet he retired and spends his time fishing. I too was sorry to see
the de facto demise of Zone VI. Although Fred was a controversial figure
personally, I thought Zone VI made excellent products.
Daniel Grenier wrote in message ...
Tim Daneliuk
>
> I have bought many an item from Zone VI over the past 20+ years; subscribed
> to their newsletter from day-one; and I even went to Newfane on a couple
> occasions back in the early 80s. I saw Fred Picker's Zone VI taken from a
> small, excellent supplier of good things to what is now an undefined,
> fuzzy, and odd fitting segment of Calumet. I was sorry to see the demise of
> Zone VI as I knew it but does anyone know what happened to Fred Picker? He
> seems to have disappeared from the photo scene. Just curious.... Thanks and
> happy Y2K. Daniel G.
I spoke to him several years ago and he was happily retired. I have not
heard of him since other than the odd sighting at Calumet HQ when they
were doing the deal for Zone VI back when...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tun...@tundraware.com
Jim
I was living in Las Vegas about 8 or 9 years ago, and
called zone vi to order one of the new enlargers. I talked
to a guy there, i believe "Brooks" was his name, and he
told me that Calumet was buying Zone IV. My reply was "to
bad, they will ruin Zone iv, and bury it in a buracracy,
BIG TIME!! He said 'no way.'
About two years after that, zone 6 was gone from the scene-
no ads in mags, not even products in the Calumet catalog!!
Calumet sold a compensating development timer - a copy of
the zone 6 timer- but NO ZONE VI TIMER EVEN IN THE CALUMET
CATaLOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UN F------ REAL !!!!!!
A year or two after that, they started selling a little
zone iv in thrir catalog. So "brooks" if you ever see
this, I told you so.
As far as Fred goes, he was a strange guy, as least in
reading his writings. I always had the impression that he
was influenced a great deal by Ayn Rand, in that he had HIS
way of doing a photograph, and that was the only way.
His rants about "fine printing" and etc, were just a little
too much, but did have some good advice from time to time.
The cameras, wooden cameras, well to make a camera out of
wood, even though it maybe 'fine exotic heartwood from the
rare temezit tree deep in the heart of the Amazon basin...
A wood camera is a wood camera! A F----- camera made out
of wood! How about a "fine swiss chocolate lens" to go
with that...
The Zone VI timers, both printing and developing are just
great, really great. My house payments and food on the
table depend on those timers. If anyone reading this does
B&W darkroom, run, don't walk, to the phone and call
Calumet and get those timers.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Dan Smith, Photographer
> reading his writings. I always had the impression that he
> was influenced a great deal by Ayn Rand, in that he had HIS
> way of doing a photograph, and that was the only way.
Actually, his interpretation of how Ansel did it.
>
> The cameras, wooden cameras, well to make a camera out of
> wood, even though it maybe 'fine exotic heartwood from the
> rare temezit tree deep in the heart of the Amazon basin...
> A wood camera is a wood camera! A F----- camera made out
> of wood! How about a "fine swiss chocolate lens" to go
> with that...
Deardorffs are wood. So are a lot of other fine, long lasting cameras. So
are many being made today. But, yes, I have heard of the 'fine swiss
chocolate lenses', they are used to make photographs of candy factories.
Dan Smith
Dave
I never quite knew what to make of Fred Picker either. He was
obviously accomplished, but I still can't quite get used to his
advocating that it's essential to make exposures with several bursts
of 3 second exposures rather than one accumulative exposure equalling
the time of the compounding of those 3 second intervals executed while
making test prints. Perhaps a really, really accurate digital timer
would prove him right, but there's too much slop in my old, analog
Gralab timer -- and my repeated settings at 3 second intervals -- for
that method to approach the time consistency I get by setting the
timer for nn seconds. As for the "wood is wood" comment, I'm not so
sure I agree. Different woods have very different dimensional
stability, mass and other characteristics. Some woods are great for
building cameras, and others aren't so hot! (Or have I just bought
into all that because I've read too many brochures from Zone VI,
Wisner and the others?!!)
FotoRR
any- error in repeating three second intervals. I have found his tapes useful
for teaching black and white darkroom techniques. My students really get off
on his "humor".
Sheldon D. Stokes
> Some woods are great for
> building cameras, and others aren't so hot! (Or have I just bought
> into all that because I've read too many brochures from Zone VI,
> Wisner and the others?!!)
My balsa wood camera is nice and light for backpacking. :)
Sheldon
Brian Ellis
there really is something to Fred's position that you get a somewhat
different exposure if, for example, you do six three second bursts as
opposed to a straight 18 seconds. The reason, as I recall, is that with the
three second bursts the light source doesn't heat up to full strength (or
maybe it takes it a second or so to do so), whereas with the straight 18
seconds it heats up and stays there. I'd use Fred's three second burst
method except I've never figured out how you are supposed to handle dodges
and burns that last for more than three seconds. Because of this, if after
doing a test strip in three second bursts I get an initial exposure of 18
seconds, for example, I just reduce it to 17 seconds to handle the
difference between the three second bursts used for the test strip and the
18 seconds of straight exposure. Not very scientific, I know, but it seems
to work o.k.
FotoRR wrote in message <20000118143155...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
Jim
so years ago, I got my first Zone VI catalog. A few years
later I remember seeing a catalog in color with a picture
of Fred on a shoot. There was Fred, all decked out with
the "proper" equiptment; Zone VI this, Zone VI that. A big
white plastic belt pouch with film holders, a Zone VI
leather meter pouch, a cherry wood gold plated hardware 4x5
camera, a Zone VI tripod, a Zone VI exposure record book, a
white plastic camera bag, (less heat as per Ansel Adams,
The Camera book 1) Everything was lined up in perfect rows,
it was all clean.
I think the camera was pointed at some white picket fence,
or some rocks (that would be black in a print) in a river
with white caps. I just knew that if I could see his shirt
pocket, it would have a plastic pocket protector full of
perfectly sharpend pencils and lined-up ball-pens. (after
seeing that catalog I bought a Fine Wooden six pack and hit
the darkroom)
The hidden message, I assumed, was that if you get this
system, the Zone VI this and the Zone VI that, and if you
were to do exactly what Fred said, that you too, could make
Fine Prints just like Fred and Ansel.
Also notice that the really decent items made by Zone VI
all came from the mind of Paul Horowitz. Everything else
was really hype.
Now, wooden cameras are fine if you want to put up with the
expansion and contraction and just in general a weaker
camera for the sake of nostalgia.
However, if Fred had made a camera on par with the Zone VI
timers, cold light heads, and Pentax meter modification
package, He would have made a carbon fiber/titanium 4x5
that weighed 2 pounds. Paul Horowitz wasn't into designing
cameras I suppose, so we never saw that product.
Bill Howell
bursts is that using a footswitch (as Fred recommended)leaves both hands
free to do all the dodging and burning you want. It also gives you an
easy method of recording (and remembering) your burning pattern. (Three
bursts to dodge here, one more to burn over there, etc.) I find it has
improved my printing and I use the Bessler electronic timer with a
footswitch. This also keeps my hands off the enlarger table so I don't
accidently bump anything during the exposures. Any body want to buy my
Gralab 300?
Bill
In article <vI7h4.3947$283....@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alec Jones
> system, the Zone VI this and the Zone VI that, and if you
> were to do exactly what Fred said, that you too, could make
> Fine Prints just like Fred and Ansel.
That's right! That is exactly what Fred was trying to achieve. I know he
sure improved my work and that of a lot of others who listened then, as Fred
said, made our own decisions.
> Also notice that the really decent items made by Zone VI
> all came from the mind of Paul Horowitz. Everything else
> was really hype.
Obviously one man's opinion. Paul had nothing to do with the film and print
washers, meter and camera cases, instructional videos, Brilliant graded
papers, photo
chemicals e.g. print developer and fixer, and electronic static brush, all
of which were excellent products which he either designed and had made or
brought back from extinction.
>
> However, if Fred had made a camera on par with the Zone VI
> timers, cold light heads, and Pentax meter modification
> package, He would have made a carbon fiber/titanium 4x5
> that weighed 2 pounds. Paul Horowitz wasn't into designing
> cameras I suppose, so we never saw that product.
Let's give credit where due. Fred was the instigator of getting together
with Ron Wisner to design the Zone VI camera, which Ron has continued to
market and expand. Looks like they did a pretty good job to me.
I don't think anyone had a better (or simpler) explanation of the Zone
system than the way Fred did. Obviously you didn't read his newsletters.
I just wanted to state there is another view of Fred.
Alec
Thomas J Scally
I first heard about Fred Picker and Zone VI Studios around 1986 and
always felt that he spoke from experience and he used the equipment
he sold. I met Fred once and talked to him a couple of times on the
phone. He used to make himself available that way, which I think was
generous of him. The invitation was right there in the Zone VI catalog,
to feel free to call him and say hi or ask for his thoughts or advice.
And he was as good as his word.
When he sold Zone VI to Calumet I was disappointed too, but how can
anyone begrudge a hardworking guy his retirement? I was always glad
that I found out about Fred and his equipment and newsletter before I
put any money down for large format equipment. I hope Fred is
enjoying himself no matter what he is doing these days.
The criticism of wooden cameras is puzzling. I've used both the Zone VI
4x5 and 8x10 in all kinds of New England weather, no problem. Certainly
if you prefer some other material go for it. In case anyone is trying to
decide what kind of camera to get for landscape work, my advice is
you can't go wrong with a high quality wooden camera such as the Zone
VI. After working with a wooden field camera I would not want any other
kind! And that goes for my wooden tripods too.
Best regards,
Tom
JEdmon1065
amongst us is not opinionated? I have a considerable amount of Zone VI
equipment and have been more than satisfied with it. I can only say that I hope
Fred is enjoying his "advanced geezerhood" (his choice of words - not mine)!
Joel Edmondson
Hal
"Daniel Grenier" <daniel...@home.com> wrote:
> I have bought many an item from Zone VI over the past 20+ years;
subscribed
> to their newsletter from day-one; and I even went to Newfane on a
couple
> occasions back in the early 80s. I saw Fred Picker's Zone VI taken
from a
> small, excellent supplier of good things to what is now an
undefined,
> fuzzy, and odd fitting segment of Calumet. I was sorry to see the
demise of
> Zone VI as I knew it but does anyone know what happened to Fred
Picker? He
> seems to have disappeared from the photo scene. Just curious....
Fred just didn't know his science (physics) and was smart enough to
retire and go away before he was exposed in detail. He had some nice
stuff to sell, on a par with most of the rest, and that was about it.
Hal
Thanks and
> happy Y2K. Daniel G.
>
>
Daniel Grenier
a lot of mail - pro & con. Fair enough. But.... doesn't everybody just miss
that character?. Where are the Fred Pickers of the world now? At B&H, second
floor, turn left? NOT! We all need more Fred Pickers. The large format photo
world was a lot more entertaining then. Wasn't it?
Cheers to you Fred Picker! Where ever you are. Daniel G.
Hal <hal...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8691st$fvo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
mevansmi
Daniel Grenier wrote:
I would appreciate being enlightened by Hal as to what science or physics Fred
Picker was ignorant of and what would be the great exposure? Please elaborate.
mevansmi
Curt Miller
>I would appreciate being enlightened by Hal as to what science or physics Fred
>Picker was ignorant of and what would be the great exposure? Please elaborate.
>mevansmi
I'll pick up on one item: Fred made a tremendous case for the cold
light source. He indicated a condenser light source was incapable of
yielding full tonal range and, in particular, separation in the
highlight regions. He cites the Callier effect and physics of
collimation and diffusion. His thesis is pure nonsense. Identical
results are achievable from each source, it's a matter of contrast
control, either by negative development CI or paper/filter grade at
the printing stage. When I teach, I always insist students ignore
that section of his book.
That said, I own several Zone VI products including a spotmeter,
washer and 4x5 field camera. In 40 years of serious photography I've
never used better quality or better functioning products (within their
scope of use) and I like the good stuff: Rollei, Hasselblad and Leica.
Fred probably would have done well to stick to what he did best rather
than proselytizing about the zone system.
Curt
Sheldon D. Stokes
cmi...@berkshire.net wrote:
> I'll pick up on one item: Fred made a tremendous case for the cold
> light source. He indicated a condenser light source was incapable of
> yielding full tonal range and, in particular, separation in the
> highlight regions. He cites the Callier effect and physics of
> collimation and diffusion. His thesis is pure nonsense. Identical
> results are achievable from each source, it's a matter of contrast
> control, either by negative development CI or paper/filter grade at
> the printing stage. When I teach, I always insist students ignore
> that section of his book.
After using both a condenser and a cold light enlarger, I find the cold
light head to be much nicer, particularly in terms of it's forgiving
nature of dust and negative defects. For students, I would think this
would be a HUGE advantage.
Fred is not alone in that claim, Ansel Adams also commented that condenser
enlargers turned a print to chalk and soot. I don't recall that he said
why though. It's in his "the print" book.
I have gotten good results from my old condenser enlarger, but the cold
light head is much better imho.
Sheldon
Alec Jones
> retire and go away before he was exposed in detail. He had some nice
> stuff to sell, on a par with most of the rest, and that was about it.
>
> Hal
Well, Hal, I sure am amazed you caught on to the act. Isn't it unreal how
ole Fred published 5 books, 3 award-winning videos, published 83 quarterly
newsletters, and hosted about 60 workshops, fooling everybody along the way
but you?
Strangely enough, [or maybe it isn't so strange at all] I've never heard of
you [do you have a resume you'd like for us to view so we can consider your
qualifications for making such claims] nor seen any of your prints [do you
use a pseudonym?]. I guess under these circumstances, I have to fall back
on advice my Mother always gave:
"Just consider the source".
Alec
Richard Knoppow
Any good diffusion source, like a color head, has the same
advantages as far as covering blemishes in the original.
Its fairly easy to demonstrate that exactly the same tonal results
can be obtained from either source. In his book _Controlls in
Black-and-White Photography_ Richard Henry shows H&D graphs of
negatives printed both ways which are _exactly_ identical. He did the
experiment by printing the same negative with both a condenser and
cold-light source. Identical results are gotten by either adjusting
negative contrast or paper contrast. The difference between the two
sources being about one paper grade.
The advantage in covering blemishes is also somewhat dependant on
the contrast of the negative. If negatives intended for printing on
condenser enalrgers are printed on diffusion enlargers the paper
contrast must be increased by one grade which tends to overcome the
advantage of the system in covering blemishes.
The same with printing diffusion negs on a condenser enlarger. The
paper contrast must be lower, which will tend to show blemishes less.
I have both the original condenser system and an Aristo lamp for my
D2V. After experimenting with the Aristo head for a time I went back
to the condenser head. Its not even a matter of taste, since I can
make identical prints with both, but the condenser seems to have some
practical advantages, at least with this particular enlarger.
It should be noted that the "Callier effect" depends on the grain
size and emulsion thickness of the film. It is greatest for
coarse-grain films with fairly thick B&W emulsions and practically
non-existent for color films.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Knoppow
Ad hominem and an argument of circumstance. The same as "I have ten
gold records, I must be right."
Hal is _not_ the only one to discover the emperor had no clothes.
Fred Picker was not a complete fraud or near it. But he did insist
on some things which made no sense at all, cold-light and heavy hypo
being among them. The criticisims of this stuff in NOT opinion but
pointing out places where he either didn't do his homework or told a
story which helped to sell stuff.
The idea that hypo washed from prints is heavy and sinks did hot,
however, originate with Fred. I've found the same thing stated in much
older books by authors who should have known better. Fred may have
picked this up from what he thought was an authoritative source. This
may have been true about the cold-light also. I think Picker was a
good teacher and good salesman but was not an authority.
Alec Jones
Richard. It's just like you to cite "graphs" to prove your point, instead
of what really counts, prints. For all those photographers out there trying
to learn the craft, I repeat what Fred so often said: "Try it". And, your
little quip about "Ad hominem and an argument of circumstance" doesn't cut
it either. The facts are the facts. I haven't seen a book of your
photographs out on the market recently!!! [Or ever].
As for your responses: bullshit! Look on page 134 of Ansel Adams [heard of
him, Richard?] Book #3 - The Print. You'll see two (2) of Fred's print
washers washing away in Ansel's darkroom. And in the text on the next page,
Ansel says processed prints should receive a final wash of at least one
hour, "preferably in a vertical archival washer". What's that all about,
Richard, if not to ensure the hypo [which is heavier, despite what you say]
can wash down and out. If it isn't heavier, what do you think it is,
lighter? Since the Zone VI washer discharges each slot from the bottom,
Ansel's recommendation is obviously based on the fact hypo is heavier. Got
any "graphs" to dispute that? To those wanting to settle the issue, try it
for yourself. Perform periodic tests on washing prints. See if they don't
clear hypo from the top first.
Finally, its a shame Ansel didn't have you to teach him how to print,
Richard. Imagine, the old fool was fooled by Fred too. Just look on page
18 of that same book and you'll see Ansel's 4x5 Beseler with Fred's
stabilizer and cold light head attached.
Other of his assistants, John Sexton comes immediately to mind, also use the
cold light head too. All unnecessary, so you say Richard? What a waste of
money. Too bad you haven't been able to convince anybody and save us from
this "madness" we've all caught - from Fred.
Let me guess, just some more of those pesky "arguments of circumstance" huh?
Last time I heard, Ansel had a lot more gold records than Fred, [and you].
Again, just consider the source.
Alec
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:388a2e21....@news.mindspring.com...
Deirdre Wiseman
damn well wants to in a wash. Why does it go out the bottom in a Zone 6
type washer? Because that's where the outlet is. I like zone 6 type
washers because they keep prints separate and I don't have to keep
leafing through a stack, not because of some mistaken theory. I also
print on a condenser enlarger. Guess I missed the boat on that one.
Edward Weston did too as he contact printed much of his stuff. When I
saw his work recently alongside AA, I was amazed at the quality of his
prints, achieved using an absolute bare minimum of equipment. While the
debate will carry on as to whether EW or AA was the better photographer,
Weston had a lot more "gold records" than Fred Picker. And you Alec.
Archy E. Wiseman
Sheldon D. Stokes
dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> The advantage in covering blemishes is also somewhat dependant on
> the contrast of the negative. If negatives intended for printing on
> condenser enalrgers are printed on diffusion enlargers the paper
> contrast must be increased by one grade which tends to overcome the
> advantage of the system in covering blemishes.
I printed an underexposed negative on a #4 paper and I thought that dust
immunity was still better than my condenser enlarger. But I'm by no means
an expert at darkroom work.
> It is greatest for
> coarse-grain films with fairly thick B&W emulsions and practically
> non-existent for color films.
Being color blind, color printing is outside my basic abilities. And I
use Tri-x which I'd say is probably one of the thicker enumsion films out
there today.
Sheldon
Sheldon D. Stokes
Hicks) wrote:
> > [which is heavier, despite what you say]
>
> Here's the bullshit. How is a solution diluted by more water heavier
> than the resulting solution? I suppose HC-110 stock sinks to the
> bottom of the graduate that the working solution is made in, or D-76
> stock sinks to the bottom when it's diluted 1:1? Pour some water into
> your glass of tea and see if the tea sinks to the bottom.
Right, it's obviously water soluble or you couldn't mix it up from powder
or liquid. It could easily be more dense, many things are, but as long as
it's capable of being mixed into a solution it's not an issue.
> >Ansel's recommendation is obviously based on the fact hypo is heavier.
>
> Ansel's recommendation is most likely based on the fact that back
> then there were two vertical washers, Wilhelm's East Street Gallery
> washer, which may have vanished from the marketplace by then, and
> Picker's.
>
Given AA's reputation and budget for photographic supplies, he could have
easily gone out and had one made at a plastic shop if he wanted. An
aquarium, some plexi and some RTV will do the job in a pinch.
> >cold light head too. All unnecessary, so you say Richard?
>
> The notion that a cold light head is necessary for "fine printing"
> is asinine.
>
Right, in the history of photography, CLH's are new kids on the block.
Lots of good stuff was printed with incandescant bulbs and even daylight
through a duct.
> >Again, just consider the source.
>
> Hmm...betcha I've published a few thousand more pictures than you,
> fwiw.
The point isn't who pubished more or who is more famous. Remember Andy
Wharhol is famous and everything he did is SHIT.
In my experience Richard has a lot of photographic knowledge and I try to
learn everything I can from him. I listen and file it. When I have a
similar experience, I use that experience to verify or refute what I've
heard here.
> Look...I'd like to make that point that I think Picker produced some
> fine products, but sometimes his sales pitch was suspect.
His products do look good and the few I have from him work well.
Everybody has their own techniques and ways of justifying those
techniques. Go back a few hundred years and everybody knew the world was
flat.
Sheldon
Roy Harrington
John Hicks wrote:
>
> Here's the bullshit. How is a solution diluted by more water heavier
> than the resulting solution? I suppose HC-110 stock sinks to the
> bottom of the graduate that the working solution is made in, or D-76
> stock sinks to the bottom when it's diluted 1:1? Pour some water into
> your glass of tea and see if the tea sinks to the bottom.
>
I've seen this argument about solutions many times in relation to fixer
and washers. Its quite true that solutions don't mysteriously
separate with the heavier stuff falling down. BUT, I think this doesn't
accurately describe what happens in washing prints. There isn't a
uniform solution in the washer. Water comes in, gains fixer as it
goes thru the washer and exits with a higher concentration of fixer.
Does a higher concentration have a higher specific gravity? I think
it does. Your example of HC-110 is a good example, fill the
graduate with water then pour a small steady stream of HC-110
concentrate in -- it goes right to the bottom. Sure it will diffuse
and mix but if you want a uniform solution fast you give it a stir.
The point is that two solutions take time to mix and before mixing the
heavier one will tend downward because of gravity.
There'a a email based group called pure-silver which recent had some
of these same discussions. A fairly well-known photographer, Tillman
Crane, did several tests about fixing and washing. One particular
finding that he reported was: After fixing and hypo-clearing a set
of prints he placed them in a clean, vertical washer. In the interest
of conserving water he left them overnight without any flow of water.
The next morning he tested for fixer in all corners of the prints.
The top of the prints were all completely clean and the bottoms were
all still laden with fixer. This seems to me to support the
heavier fixer idea.
> Look...I'd like to make that point that I think Picker produced some
> fine products, but sometimes his sales pitch was suspect.
> And remember that you're vociferously defending the guy who _cut
> down_ saplings and brush that were _in the way_ of the scenic view he
> shot for a photo magazine a few years ago.
>
> ---
> John Hicks
Sure, Picker made too big a deal about this. Any of the archival
washers will do an excellent job in washing regardless of where the
exit is.
Roy
--
Roy Harrington
r...@harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com
Gary W. Marklund
Please point me to the portion of Richard's posting that required such a rude
response. You might try a little more civility and if you need a teacher for
gentlemanly behavior, I suggest Richard.
Gary
Alec Jones wrote:
> Last time I heard, Ansel had a lot more gold records than Fred, [and you].
> Again, just consider the source.
>
John Hicks
wrote:
>Ansel says processed prints should receive a final wash of at least one
>hour, "preferably in a vertical archival washer". What's that all about,
It' s about the fact that vertical washers make tremendously more
efficient use of floor/sink space, water flow and manpower than single
huge wash trays that have to be tended by hand, and don't damage
prints like those old floor-standing rotating-barrel jobs.
> [which is heavier, despite what you say]
Here's the bullshit. How is a solution diluted by more water heavier
than the resulting solution? I suppose HC-110 stock sinks to the
bottom of the graduate that the working solution is made in, or D-76
stock sinks to the bottom when it's diluted 1:1? Pour some water into
your glass of tea and see if the tea sinks to the bottom.
>Ansel's recommendation is obviously based on the fact hypo is heavier.
Ansel's recommendation is most likely based on the fact that back
then there were two vertical washers, Wilhelm's East Street Gallery
washer, which may have vanished from the marketplace by then, and
Picker's.
>cold light head too. All unnecessary, so you say Richard?
The notion that a cold light head is necessary for "fine printing"
is asinine.
>Again, just consider the source.
Hmm...betcha I've published a few thousand more pictures than you,
fwiw.
Look...I'd like to make that point that I think Picker produced some
fredd_...@my-deja.com
> Zone VI as I knew it but does anyone know what happened to Fred
Picker? He
> seems to have disappeared from the photo scene. Just curious....
I am not sorry to see him go. Dogma has no place in photography. Fine
prints were made long before the advent of the Zone VI modified Pentax
meter or the cold light head and undoubtedly they will be made in the
21st Century in some entirely different medium.
But what conclusions can be drawn about the character of the man who
modifies and promotes a Wista as his own creation, then hires Ron
Wisner to design and build a new camera, and then criticizes that same
designer and builder when he (Ron) strikes out on his own - just as
Fred himself did? And what can you conclude about someone who
criticizes the Deardorff, a camera used by the greats and still in use
and selling like the proverbial hotcake and very obviously the
inspiration for the very camera he hired someone else to D&B? And why
criticize a company that's out of business and not competeing with
you? Fred claimed that the ZONE VI was stronger because it was simpler
than the Wisner. And yet the Deardorff is simpler than the Zone VI.....
At the same time, he used to promote the Besseler as the best enlarger
in the world and then trashed it as beneath contempt after he had made
sufficient money selling it to hire someone to design and build the
Zone VI
The man wrote like he had eaten an L.L. Bean catalogue while attending
a convention of schizophrenic Luddites.
ArtKramr
>From: "Alec Jones" al...@bellsouth.net
>Date: Sat, 22 January 2000 08:10 PM EST
>Message-id: <fysi4.12069$pk.8...@news3.mi
>Look on page 134 of Ansel Adams [heard of
>him, Richard?] Book #3 - The Print. You'll see two (2) of Fred's print
>washers washing away in Ansel's darkroom. And in the text on the next page,
>Ansel says processed prints should receive a final wash of at least one
>hour, "preferably in a vertical archival washer". What's that all about,
>Richard, if not to ensure the hypo [which is heavier, despite what you say]
>can wash down and out. If it isn't
Fred sent our his washers to selected photographers for nothing just so that
they would use it and then he would use their name in his ads. He sent me one
and used my name in his ads without my permission. It is a lousy washer because
the prints bowed in the slots and contacted the plexiglass. Washing was great
at the efdges but lousy in the center, So when the edges were tested
chemically for hypo the test came out cxlean but the center of the prints were
not well washed at all. And hypo goes into solution in the wash water to form
a uniform solution. Fred said it fell to the bottom because it suited his
purpose and he didn't know any better.
Mike Nielsen
That being said, I truly miss Fred, his products, and mostly his writing. He is an original.
MLN
JCPERE
on Ebay. The legend continues.
Chuck
Alec Jones
burrows every once and a while and once again make fools of themselves.
Isn't life great!!!!
fredd_...@my-deja.com
Oh! Alec! I Pray you! Enlighten us! Shower us with your wisdom!
Reveal the ONE TRUE LIGHT of Pickerdom to our benighted souls!
John Hicks
<r...@harrington.com> wrote:
> There isn't a uniform solution in the washer.
I'd agree with that, on the condition that prints were put into a
full washer of still water and just left there. But that's not how we
wash prints.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that
the concentration of remaining fixer in the prints and in the water
would again reach equilibrium
---
John Hicks
Alec Jones
unwashed, hence unclean!
Roy Harrington
Hi John,
If by "equilibrium" you mean uniform solution throughout the washer,
that seems very unlikely. The whole idea of washing is to bring in
clear water and exit the fixer laden water, so it seems to me that there's
got to be a gradient of fixer concentration from zero at the inlet to
maximum at the exit. Think of the new design washers (Cascade I think)
that move the water sequentially from slot to slot -- isn't it easy
to accept that the first print will clear of fixer before the last
print? If there's a gradient from slot to slot why not within each
slot?
My suspicion is that in the early stages of washing the exit at the
bottom will draw off a slightly higher concentration of fixer. The
exit at the top would encourage more mixing of the entire washer.
Certainly at the later stages of washing the amount of fixer has to
get neglible so that all washers would be equally effective.
Alec Jones
retired attorney, I just like to push their hot button.
Makes no difference to me what they think. I've already made up my mind.
I'm a perfect example of the theory "often mistaken, rarely confounded",
or, for the unwashed, like Fred, [sorry but you said to give you a shower],
"often wrong but never in doubt".
As for Richard Knoppow, I'm sure his grandchildren love him, but I'm sorry,
he just comes across to me as a pompous twit. His "superior" attitude turns
me off and I just say so. [Just one man's opinion].
Enough of this fun.
smieglitz
of washing prints and removing hypo relies on a couple key factors.
If a print is put into still water, hypo will diffuse from the print until an
equilibrium is reached with the water. I suppose if the water remained
undisturbed, the hypo might eventually have a higher concentration towards the
bottom of the washer (and thus the print) if you could prevent evaporation,
etc., in the washer By the time any possible gradient formed, (and the
Brownian motion of the molecules in solution would probably prevent such a
gradient), the gelatin would probably dissolve in the water taking the image
with it. This certainly isn't how we wash prints.
Any turbulence in the water aids in the removal of hypo from the surface of
the print where it is diffusing toward lower concentrations, and this
turbulence would prevent hypo from sinking in the water. It would simply flow
out the exit, be it from the top, bottom, side, whatever of a washer.
Turbulence in a running washer nullifies Picker's claim. Turbulent flow
overcomes gravity.
Most of the hypo is removed in the first ten minutes of washing, whether the
wash is in running water in an archival vertical washer, a horizontal tray
with a tray siphon, or by a series of fill and dumps of a wash tray filled
with standing water (although the latter method usually takes longer). You
just need to keep fresh(er) water on the print for diffusion and turbulence to
do that voodoo. Turbulence helps, gravity doesn't. The real trick is getting
the rest of the thiosulphate complexes out of the print and this is where hypo
removers (HCA, sodium sulfite clearing baths, etc.) really help. They convert
the remaining hypo byproducts into a more water soluble form chemically, which
results in a more efficient wash, less water usage, and resultant shorter wash times.
Joe
Deirdre Wiseman
> he just comes across to me as a pompous twit. His "superior" attitude turns
> me off and I just say so. [Just one man's opinion].
>
opinion, cause you sure aint reading the same Richard Knoppow I am.
Arch
Sheldon D. Stokes
admwi...@ameritech.net wrote:
I'll second that, I've seen my share of pompus twits in life and on the
net (check out rec.audio.high-end for a good dose), and I wouldn't put
Richard in that catagory. He seems helpful and unbiased from what I've
read.
Sheldon
Mark Bergman
word -:).
<fredd_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86ffhu$sk3> Oh! Alec! I
Mark Bergman
rec.photo.newsgroups by a mile.
"Deirdre Wiseman" <admwi...@mailhost.day.ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:388BCB47...@mailhost.day.ameritech.net...
> > As for Richard Knoppow, I'm sure his grandchildren love him, but I'm
sorry,
> > he just comes across to me as a pompous twit. His "superior" attitude
turns
> > me off and I just say so. [Just one man's opinion].
> >
> O.K. We'll just call it your frequently erroneous and often disputed
> opinion, cause you sure aint reading the same Richard Knoppow I am.
>
> Arch
GaryB
friendly discussion.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:10:15 -0600, "Alec Jones" <al...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>Yea, I was waiting for you to pop up with an "authoritarian" response,
>Richard. It's just like you to cite "graphs" to prove your point, instead
>of what really counts, prints. For all those photographers out there trying
>to learn the craft, I repeat what Fred so often said: "Try it". And, your
>little quip about "Ad hominem and an argument of circumstance" doesn't cut
>it either. The facts are the facts. I haven't seen a book of your
>photographs out on the market recently!!! [Or ever].
>
>As for your responses: bullshit! Look on page 134 of Ansel Adams [heard of
>him, Richard?] Book #3 - The Print. You'll see two (2) of Fred's print
>washers washing away in Ansel's darkroom. And in the text on the next page,
>Ansel says processed prints should receive a final wash of at least one
>hour, "preferably in a vertical archival washer". What's that all about,
>Richard, if not to ensure the hypo [which is heavier, despite what you say]
>can wash down and out. If it isn't heavier, what do you think it is,
>lighter? Since the Zone VI washer discharges each slot from the bottom,
>Ansel's recommendation is obviously based on the fact hypo is heavier. Got
>any "graphs" to dispute that? To those wanting to settle the issue, try it
>for yourself. Perform periodic tests on washing prints. See if they don't
>clear hypo from the top first.
>
>Finally, its a shame Ansel didn't have you to teach him how to print,
>Richard. Imagine, the old fool was fooled by Fred too. Just look on page
>18 of that same book and you'll see Ansel's 4x5 Beseler with Fred's
>stabilizer and cold light head attached.
>Other of his assistants, John Sexton comes immediately to mind, also use the
>cold light head too. All unnecessary, so you say Richard? What a waste of
>money. Too bad you haven't been able to convince anybody and save us from
>this "madness" we've all caught - from Fred.
>
>Let me guess, just some more of those pesky "arguments of circumstance" huh?
>Last time I heard, Ansel had a lot more gold records than Fred, [and you].
>Again, just consider the source.
>
GaryB
<r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Hicks wrote:
>>
>> Here's the bullshit. How is a solution diluted by more water heavier
>> than the resulting solution? I suppose HC-110 stock sinks to the
>> bottom of the graduate that the working solution is made in, or D-76
>> stock sinks to the bottom when it's diluted 1:1? Pour some water into
>> your glass of tea and see if the tea sinks to the bottom.
In fact the tea does sink to the bottom if it is not stirred.
Most chemical solutions are denser than water and unless stirred they
will sink to the bottom of the vessel. I once had a lab technician
that poured two solvents together without mixing. The next day you
could see two different layers of liquids due to the difference there
diffraction
>>
>
>I've seen this argument about solutions many times in relation to fixer
>and washers. Its quite true that solutions don't mysteriously
>separate with the heavier stuff falling down. BUT, I think this doesn't
>accurately describe what happens in washing prints. There isn't a
>uniform solution in the washer. Water comes in, gains fixer as it
>goes thru the washer and exits with a higher concentration of fixer.
>Does a higher concentration have a higher specific gravity? I think
>it does. Your example of HC-110 is a good example, fill the
>graduate with water then pour a small steady stream of HC-110
>concentrate in -- it goes right to the bottom. Sure it will diffuse
>and mix but if you want a uniform solution fast you give it a stir.
>The point is that two solutions take time to mix and before mixing the
>heavier one will tend downward because of gravity.
>
>There'a a email based group called pure-silver which recent had some
>of these same discussions. A fairly well-known photographer, Tillman
>Crane, did several tests about fixing and washing. One particular
>finding that he reported was: After fixing and hypo-clearing a set
>of prints he placed them in a clean, vertical washer. In the interest
>of conserving water he left them overnight without any flow of water.
>The next morning he tested for fixer in all corners of the prints.
>The top of the prints were all completely clean and the bottoms were
>all still laden with fixer. This seems to me to support the
>heavier fixer idea.
>
>
>> Look...I'd like to make that point that I think Picker produced some
>> fine products, but sometimes his sales pitch was suspect.
>> And remember that you're vociferously defending the guy who _cut
>> down_ saplings and brush that were _in the way_ of the scenic view he
>> shot for a photo magazine a few years ago.
>>
>> ---
>> John Hicks
>
>Sure, Picker made too big a deal about this. Any of the archival
>washers will do an excellent job in washing regardless of where the
>exit is.
>
>Roy
GaryB
>>Subject: Re: Whatever happened Fred Picker?
>>From: "Alec Jones" al...@bellsouth.net
>>Date: Sat, 22 January 2000 08:10 PM EST
>>Message-id: <fysi4.12069$pk.8...@news3.mi
>
>>Look on page 134 of Ansel Adams [heard of
>>him, Richard?] Book #3 - The Print. You'll see two (2) of Fred's print
>>washers washing away in Ansel's darkroom. And in the text on the next page,
>>Ansel says processed prints should receive a final wash of at least one
>>hour, "preferably in a vertical archival washer". What's that all about,
>>Richard, if not to ensure the hypo [which is heavier, despite what you say]
>>can wash down and out. If it isn't
>
>Fred sent our his washers to selected photographers for nothing just so that
>they would use it and then he would use their name in his ads. He sent me one
>and used my name in his ads without my permission. It is a lousy washer because
>the prints bowed in the slots and contacted the plexiglass. Washing was great
>at the efdges but lousy in the center, So when the edges were tested
>chemically for hypo the test came out cxlean but the center of the prints were
>not well washed at all. And hypo goes into solution in the wash water to form
>a uniform solution. Fred said it fell to the bottom because it suited his
>purpose and he didn't know any better.
I use an old Kostiner that uses air gathered by a venturi at the
inlet. It moves the prints constantly and seems to work well.
>
ArtKramr
>Date: Sun, 23 January 2000 07:30 PM EST
>Message-id: <387n8s8eq68d8hreh...@4ax.com>
>I use an old Kostiner that uses air gathered by a venturi at the
>inlet. It moves the prints constantly and seems to work well.
>>
Exactly. The Kostiner washer solves that problem. Just because a washer is
called archival, doesn't mean that it is archival. And most aren't. In fact an
old Kodak Tray Siphon in a large tray often does a better job than many
"archival" washers.
Arthur
ArtKramr
>Date: Sun, 23 January 2000 08:12 PM EST
>Message-id: <5HNi4.21568$wk.3...@news1.mia>
>
>Hey, Gary, I'm just having fun with these guys. I'm no expert. As an old
>retired attorney, I just like to push their hot button.
>
>Makes no difference to me what they think. I've already made up my mind.
>I'm a perfect example of the theory "often mistaken, rarely confounded",
>or, for the unwashed, like Fred, [sorry but you said to give you a shower],
>"often wrong but never in doubt".
>
>he just comes across to me as a pompous twit. His "superior" attitude turns
>me off and I just say so. [Just one man's opinion].
>
>
Actually the comments Richard made re: Fred Picker are quite accurate, if that
has any importance to you.
Arthur
fredd_...@my-deja.com
Just what I need! Salvation from the sanctimonious and self-
righteous! My heathen soul shall be clensed in the pure light of
hypocrisy and profit! Ne'er shall I question the lofty genius of
Fred! All hail Fred! St. Fred! Cast out the Westons, the Cunninghams
and all false prophets!!!
Brian Ellis
in point is the old Zone VI catalog, where Fred claimed that the Zone VI
variable contrast head was the only head on which the two controls, blue and
green, could be independently adjusted. The catalog said that the heads of
the other two manufacturers (Aristo and probably Oriental) couldn't do this.
In fact the Aristo 4500 VCL could do exactly that. When the guy who runs
Aristo pointed this out to Fred he refused to change the catalog and it
remained the same for many years despite the fact that the statement was
demonstrably false. Interesting that Fed continues to provoke such an
interesting discussion even when he's no longer around.
Alec Jones wrote in message <5HNi4.21568$wk.3...@news1.mia>...
Gary W. Marklund
Now it's my turn (:-).
Gary
Curt Miller
>Hey, Gary, I'm just having fun with these guys. I'm no expert. As an old
>retired attorney, I just like to push their hot button.
Alec, you've gotten us to no higher level of knowledge and I'm sure
you're mother would not have been pleased by your rudeness to Richard.
If ever there was anyone who should not be flamed, it's Richard.
As a separate issue, I've witnessed many credible and credentialled
people torn apart in cross examination by attorneys in court. Not
only is it distasteful but in many cases does not lead to a higher
truth anyway. I'm sure you think it's just good sport and good law.
As someone with every bit as much training as you, I'm here to say
that notion is nuts and so is much of our jurisprudence (and its
practitioners). Megalomania and swagger may rule in American
courtrooms but not here in rec.photo.whatever.
Curt
Gdoces
>God, I love it when the "Picker haters" come out of their dark little
>burrows every once and a while and once again make fools of themselves.
>Isn't life great!!!!
>
So far in all the postings under this subject heading I have seen only one
"fool."
fredd_...@my-deja.com
> Hey, Gary, I'm just having fun with these guys. I'm no expert. As
an old
> retired attorney, I just like to push their hot button.
Well there you have it. Yet another demonstration of why the legal
profession is so respected and revered in this country.
Richard Knoppow
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:35:22 -0800, Roy Harrington
><r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>John Hicks wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's the bullshit. How is a solution diluted by more water heavier
>>> than the resulting solution? I suppose HC-110 stock sinks to the
>>> bottom of the graduate that the working solution is made in, or D-76
>>> stock sinks to the bottom when it's diluted 1:1? Pour some water into
>>> your glass of tea and see if the tea sinks to the bottom.
>
>In fact the tea does sink to the bottom if it is not stirred.
>
>Most chemical solutions are denser than water and unless stirred they
>will sink to the bottom of the vessel. I once had a lab technician
>that poured two solvents together without mixing. The next day you
>could see two different layers of liquids due to the difference there
>diffraction
>>>
Lots of stuff snipped...
My question here is _has_ the tea gone into _solution_ or is it a
_suspension_.
My understanding is that a somthing which goes into solution will
diffuse throughout the solvent by means of molecular forces or
Brownian motion or convection in the absence of some strong stirring
action.
Again, if my understanding is correct the hypo and reaction products
from a photographic emulsion will diffuse out of the emulsion at a
rate dependant on the relative concentration of the substance in the
emulsion vs: the solvent. In the absense of some force to move it away
from the surface, it will form a cloud around the area, which will
slowly diffuse out away from the emulsion suface. The relative
difference of specific gravity of this cloud may start some
convection, which I suspect would accelerate the process. But, the
hypo would continue to diffuse into the body of water in the tank (or
whatever) until, eventually, an equilibrium condition would be reached
where the solution in the tank would be uniform and no more would
diffuse out from the emulsion.
I don't believe a condition would ever be reached where there would
be a stratification of hypo solution and just water. My understanding
of the principles of chemistry is that this is impossible.
OTOH, something which is in _suspension_ may eventually precipitate
or become stratified.
I would give as an example of a solution dissolving some dye in a
tank of water. If you put a few drops of something like beet juice
(its handy) in still water it will form a cloud which will slowly
spread out until the entire tank is uniformly stained. I think this is
more analogous to what happens with hypo than tea.
In any case, as has been pointed out elswhere, (there are now at
least fifty responses in this thread) if there is agitation of the
solvent even a suspension would not fall to the bottom of the tank.
The idea that hypo is heavier than water and flows to the bottom of
a washer is not recent, I've seen it in photography books from the
1920's perhaps even before.
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 24 January 2000 12:23 AM EST
>Message-id: <86gnje$okc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>"Alec Jones" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Hey, Gary, I'm just having fun with these guys. I'm no expert. As
>an old
>> retired attorney, I just like to push their hot button.
>
>
>Well there you have it. Yet another demonstration of why the legal
>profession is so respected and revered in this country.
>
Association meeting and took 100 lawyers as hostages?. They said if their
demands were not met they would release one lawyer every hour.
Arthur
SPECTRUM
<bel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>One of Fred's problems was that he outright lied if it helped sales.
Ummm, nothing new about that one ! just look at Microsoft.
They're still pretending that Windows is an operating system !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>Again, just consider the source.
>
>Alec
I have.
***PLONK ! !***
Regards,
John
Deirdre Wiseman
>
> >
> >Well there you have it. Yet another demonstration of why the legal
> >profession is so respected and revered in this country.
> >
> Did you hear the story about a group of terrorist that attacked a Bar
> Association meeting and took 100 lawyers as hostages?. They said if their
> demands were not met they would release one lawyer every hour.
>
> Arthur
Careful Arthur, cause you could release a whole bunch of lawyer jokes
like: "How can you tell when a lawyer gets aroused? He gets taller."
I'll stop now.
Arch
Brian Ellis
ArtKramr wrote in message <20000124003637...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Whatever happened Fred Picker?
>>From: fredd_...@my-deja.com
>>Date: Mon, 24 January 2000 12:23 AM EST
>>Message-id: <86gnje$okc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>
>>"Alec Jones" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Hey, Gary, I'm just having fun with these guys. I'm no expert. As
>>an old
>>> retired attorney, I just like to push their hot button.
>>
>>
Roy Harrington
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I was attempting to change the
thread from a Picker flame fest into a reasonable discussion of the
way washers work. The usual response is "its a solution, therefore
uniform, end of discussion". I don't claim to know the answer but
I do believe the "usual response" is too simplistic and ignors the
dynamics of the actual process.
Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> My understanding is that a somthing which goes into solution will
> diffuse throughout the solvent by means of molecular forces or
> Brownian motion or convection in the absence of some strong stirring
> action.
Agreed, but I think there are two main points. First, its takes time
to happen -- potentially quite long. Second, two solutions of different
densities have gravity counteracting the mixing by convection.
I don't know about the Brownian motion but at least that is slow.
My reference to Tillman Crane's test of hypo in left overnight in a
washer certainly supports this notion. If the hypo sinks to the
bottom of the washer and does not diffuse uniformly we have real
measured evidence. I'd like to emphasize that I'm not saying a
uniform solution will separate, just that given two different solutions
they won't necessarily mix rapidly especially with gravity counteracting
the mixing.
There are plenty of large scale examples of this. Heat a room with a
wood burning stove without forced air circulation and all the hot air
rises because of gravity. The hot air is less dense. With the usual
argument it ought to spontaneously mix and the whole room become
uniform temperature.
> Again, if my understanding is correct the hypo and reaction products
> from a photographic emulsion will diffuse out of the emulsion at a
> rate dependant on the relative concentration of the substance in the
> emulsion vs: the solvent. In the absense of some force to move it away
> from the surface, it will form a cloud around the area, which will
> slowly diffuse out away from the emulsion suface. The relative
> difference of specific gravity of this cloud may start some
> convection, which I suspect would accelerate the process. But, the
> hypo would continue to diffuse into the body of water in the tank (or
> whatever) until, eventually, an equilibrium condition would be reached
> where the solution in the tank would be uniform and no more would
> diffuse out from the emulsion.
> I don't believe a condition would ever be reached where there would
> be a stratification of hypo solution and just water. My understanding
> of the principles of chemistry is that this is impossible.
You wouldn't an exact boundry between hypo and water, I would think it
would be a gradient where the concentration of hypo is greater on the
bottom.
> OTOH, something which is in _suspension_ may eventually precipitate
> or become stratified.
> I would give as an example of a solution dissolving some dye in a
> tank of water. If you put a few drops of something like beet juice
> (its handy) in still water it will form a cloud which will slowly
> spread out until the entire tank is uniformly stained. I think this is
> more analogous to what happens with hypo than tea.
> In any case, as has been pointed out elswhere, (there are now at
> least fifty responses in this thread) if there is agitation of the
> solvent even a suspension would not fall to the bottom of the tank.
> The idea that hypo is heavier than water and flows to the bottom of
> a washer is not recent, I've seen it in photography books from the
> 1920's perhaps even before.
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, Ca.
> dick...@ix.netcom.com
--
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 24 January 2000 05:50 PM EST
>Message-id: <388CD504...@harrington.com>
>claim to know the answer but
>I do believe the "usual response" is too simplistic and ignors the
>dynamics of the actual process.
Remember that in a washer the water flows, often quite rapidly. There is no
"still water" situation where the layers can settle . The hypo goes into
complete solution in the flowing water almost instantly. Your anology of
solutions of different density layering in still water is correct. But only for
still water. And the situation is far from that in a washer where all the water
is in constant motion.
Arthur
Sheldon D. Stokes
comput...@home.com wrote:
> Ummm, nothing new about that one ! just look at Microsoft.
> They're still pretending that Windows is an operating system !
It is, it's jsut an awful one. What's even more sad is how many people
tolerate it.
Sheldon
(penguinified)
Hal
"Alec Jones" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> God, I love it when the "Picker haters" come out of their dark little
> burrows every once and a while and once again make fools of
themselves.
> Isn't life great!!!!
>
Come on Alec. I doubt that anyone in the thread "hates" Picker. Matter
of fact, we kind of miss him... like the neighborhood bad boy. He sold
some good stuff, but just had a hard time talking and being really
straight with us consumers. So relax, most of this is in good fun. (But
real true stuff...!)
Regards,
Hal
Alec Jones
> real true stuff...!)
I know that, Hal. I had a ball.
It really does amaze me how easy it is to set off folks on this subject.
It's an interesting study in human nature.
Alec
Paul and Paula Butzi
<r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>There'a a email based group called pure-silver which recent had some
>of these same discussions. A fairly well-known photographer, Tillman
>Crane, did several tests about fixing and washing. One particular
>finding that he reported was: After fixing and hypo-clearing a set
>of prints he placed them in a clean, vertical washer. In the interest
>of conserving water he left them overnight without any flow of water.
>The next morning he tested for fixer in all corners of the prints.
>The top of the prints were all completely clean and the bottoms were
>all still laden with fixer. This seems to me to support the
>heavier fixer idea.
Or, it could be that the prints sank to the bottom of the washer,
where the available water for diffusion was limited because the print
was resting on the bottom, and thus the bottom of the prints had more
hypo.
It could have been
that his soak/wash lacked sufficient volume, and that
he hung the prints to dry, so that all the hypo laden water
ran to the bottom of the prints before evaporating.
It could be that when he loaded the prints into the washer,
he held them upright, letting hypo run down the surface
of the print, so that the bottom was hypo laden but there
was little hypo on the surface at the top.
A better experiment would be to mix a solution of
fixer, dilute it, put it in the washer, and wait, say,
one hour (or however long it takes to replace the
water in your washer). Now take samples at
various depths, and assess the hypo concentration.
Without more details on what Tillman Crane actually did,
it's hard to know whether to believe his results. Being
a well known photographer (and I greatly admire Tillman
Crane as a photographer) does not make you an
expert in experimental design.
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W photography, camera and equipment reviews, and photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 10/21/99)
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
Roy Harrington
Well certainly the rate of water flow can have a large effect. In fact
you post makes me question what flow rate is necessary to get an
effective wash. It seems like there are various washer designs that
allow different flow rates. It seems that a washer with the exit at
the bottom can be effective regardless of the actual flow rate. You
still need enough total water change to deliver clean water to the
prints but the rate is not crucial. On the other hand with a top exit
washer there must be enough turbulence to insure that there is
complete mixing. Without that turbulence the fixer would tend to
settle in the bottom. So you either need a rapid water flow or one
of those washers with aeriation (never seen one but I have heard of them).
The other neat design is the Cascade Washer which directs all the water
past all the prints so it gets higher turbulence with a lower flow.
I wonder if the manufacturers have actually tried some of these tests.
Roy
mevansmi
Roy Harrington wrote:
From reading all these threads I am concluding that the principle of a proper washing
and wash product is to have enough fresh water enter a container which prevents cross
contamination and provides uniform wash exposure on both print sides sufficient to
remove residual compounds that will degrade the image and finally to drain the dirty
water(hypo laden} at a flow rate which does not waste water and leaves the print hypo
free.This would be an ok product.
The time this takes I assume can be tested by using Kodak hypo-test solution
estimator.
And Aaron Sussman once suggested that for absolute print permanence you should soak
the prints after fixing and rinsing, and before washing, in a 1 per cent solution of
sodium carbonate for 1 minute. Then each 10 minutes of washing time thereafter will
be equivalent to 30 minutes for prints not so treated.Has anyone tried that and
tested after for resiual hypo?
Alec Jones
aeriation (never seen one but I have heard of them).>
Not necessarily, Roy. In Kodak's Publication "Quality Enlarging" G-1, they
speak of "Still Water Washing" on page 61 [incidentally, they show Fred's
washer on that page too]. They describe this process as: "Where the supply
of water is limited, prints can be washed by a series of successive soaks of
the prints in still water. ..." and go on to recommend six periods of short
soakings, @ 4 minutes each. Keep in mind, this only applies to fiber paper.
RC is another animal altogether.
From what I've read, the East Street Gallery print washer used the "bubble"
effect, but it didn't work. They realized that fact, recalled the washers,
but went broke before they could retool.
Alec
Gordon LaVere
Has he passed away?
Is he very ill.
What's the story ?
"Hal" <hal...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:86jc1t$n0r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <wQEi4.528$1%2.6...@news3.mia>,
> "Alec Jones" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > God, I love it when the "Picker haters" come out of their dark little
> > burrows every once and a while and once again make fools of
> themselves.
> > Isn't life great!!!!
> >
>
> Come on Alec. I doubt that anyone in the thread "hates" Picker. Matter
> of fact, we kind of miss him... like the neighborhood bad boy. He sold
> some good stuff, but just had a hard time talking and being really
> straight with us consumers. So relax, most of this is in good fun. (But
> real true stuff...!)
>
Alec Jones
> Has he passed away?
> Is he very ill.
> What's the story ?
Why don't you write him at RR 2, Box 1170, Putney, VT 05346 and let us know?
Roy Harrington
Hi Paul,
Well I agree that the experiments, results, and conclusions are
somewhat subjective in their interpretation.
Just so we both have the same data, here is a cut&paste
of Crane's exact writings. I apologize if my summary was at
all different.
------
5. I did another batch through fresh fixer and fersh fixer remover, placed
them in a verticla print washer and let them sit over night with no water
running through the washer. I then testes all foru edges of each print. The
op edges tested rather clean and the bottom was filled with fixer. I then
filpped the print around, top on bottom, drained a few inches of water and
washed them. After ten minutes all four edges were fairly clean and after
20 minutes they tested completely clean, both with silver nitrate and
selenium.
We were trying to find out a way to save water, adn the over night soak in
a vertical print washer , then drainingg a few inches of 'heavy" water then
washing for 20 minutes worked great.
--- Tillman Crane
------
Your three "could have been"'s, while I guess possible, seem unlikely
usage of an archival washer by an accomplished and experienced
photographer. Experiment design is a different skill but he does
say what he did and what he measured. I find the most plausible
conclusion is to take it at face value -- the fixer congregated in
the bottom instead of mixing uniformly. Given a simple and plausible
physical reason for it -- i.e. gravity, and given some real world
similar layering of hot/cold air in a room, salt/fresh water layering
in large bodies of water, it seems like the only reasonable
conclusion.
I'm NOT trying to say or convince anyone that:
---Zone VI is the only good print washer.
---Picker is the genius who figured it all out.
---Everyone ought to junk the other washers and buy a bottom exit washer.
As Richard Knoppow said, this "heavy fixer" notion has been in the
literature since the 1920's or so. The "knee jerk" response to this
is always -- total bunk, 100% false, possibly fueled by the dislike
of Picker's marketing use of the notion. It just seems to me that
there is plausible evidence of the notion and why not just accept it.
I'm perfectly OK with the answer: True, but who cares or it just
doesn't make a significant difference. By rights, we all ought to
test our own washers, with our own paper, with our own processing
steps and find out how long we need to wash to get clean prints.
Thats probably necessary and sufficient for all those who want
the utmost from their prints.
Sorry about the rant.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <388E9B53...@harrington.com>
>I'm NOT trying to say or convince anyone that:
>---Zone VI is the only good print washer.
>---Picker is the genius who figured it all out.
>---Everyone ought to junk the other washers and buy a bottom exit washer.
PIcker also marketed a number of roll film washers. In these washers the water
exited from the TOP of the washer. You figure it out.
Arthur
Paul and Paula Butzi
<r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>5. I did another batch through fresh fixer and fersh fixer remover, placed
>them in a verticla print washer and let them sit over night with no water
>running through the washer. I then testes all foru edges of each print. The
>op edges tested rather clean and the bottom was filled with fixer. I then
>filpped the print around, top on bottom, drained a few inches of water and
>washed them. After ten minutes all four edges were fairly clean and after
>20 minutes they tested completely clean, both with silver nitrate and
>selenium.
>
>We were trying to find out a way to save water, adn the over night soak in
>a vertical print washer , then drainingg a few inches of 'heavy" water then
>washing for 20 minutes worked great.
>--- Tillman Crane
>
>------
>
>Your three "could have been"'s, while I guess possible, seem unlikely
>usage of an archival washer by an accomplished and experienced
>photographer.
Not at all. No where does he take any precautions to prevent
unequal distribution of fixer on the print when he puts it in the
washer.
No where does he take any precautions to prevent the print from
sinking to the bottom of the washer, where the edge of the print
will sit against the bottom of the washer and thus have only
half the available area for diffusion of hypo.
Apparently the washer was not run at all, but we don't really know.
Tillman seems to be a pretty careful worker; perhaps he ran the
washer for a minute or two (and thus prepped the washer with
an unequal distribution of hypo because of water flow top to bottom)
and then shut it off.
I'm not saying that stratification of hypo doesn't occur, I'm just
saying that this experiment doesn't prove it.
It does prove that if Tillman Crane puts prints in his washer
and lets it sit overnight, the bottom edges are dirtier than
the top edges.
> Experiment design is a different skill but he does
>say what he did and what he measured.
The problem with his experimental design is that he doesn't
say what he *didn't* do, and there are quite a few variables
he has not controlled.
There's an aphorism about experimental design - it's easy
to measure anything accurately as long as you don't mind
measuring six things with one measurement. It's when you
want to measure ONLY ONE THING that it gets hard.
>I find the most plausible
>conclusion is to take it at face value -- the fixer congregated in
>the bottom instead of mixing uniformly.
Actually, the plausible conclusion is that SOMETHING in
Tillman's procedure (and there are a lot of things it could
be) caused the bottom of the print to have more fixer than
the top.
Let me give a counter example. Naturally, it doesn't carry
the weight of Tillman Crane's words, but nevertheless...
Before I built my current darkroom, I used to wash prints by
dumping them into the bathtub, with the tub full of water. I'd
swish them around every five minutes or so, and after a couple
of hours, I'd take them out. Result: tests indicated that they
were fine (using the Kodak silver nitrate test kit).
Since I'm naturally a lazy soul, I decided to try an overnight
soak with no agitation at all. The results were not as good
because some prints would sink to the bottom and some float
to the top. The prints resting on the bottom of the tub would test
clean. The prints at the top typically tested dirty along one edge;
this was the edge that was touching the side of the tub. My
*tentative* conclusion was that at the side of the tub you
have only half the volume available for diffusion. But I never
really bothered to work out what the problem was; it was
easier to just swish the prints around for two hours.
> Given a simple and plausible
>physical reason for it -- i.e. gravity, and given some real world
>similar layering of hot/cold air in a room, salt/fresh water layering
>in large bodies of water, it seems like the only reasonable
>conclusion.
I would disagree, but it probably doesn't really matter. No one
is going to be convinced either way, since the whole issue
has taken on religious significance.
>As Richard Knoppow said, this "heavy fixer" notion has been in the
>literature since the 1920's or so. The "knee jerk" response to this
>is always -- total bunk, 100% false, possibly fueled by the dislike
>of Picker's marketing use of the notion. It just seems to me that
>there is plausible evidence of the notion and why not just accept it.
Probably the resistance is caused by the fact that photographic
procedure is so laden with superstitious nonsense that it prevents
people from making real progress. "Heavy hypo" appears to be
one more bit of superstitious nonsense, rather like "split filter
printing gives results unattainable by straight VC printing",
another thing which seems to have some association with
Fred. Or "Cold light heads give results not achievable with
any other light source", something attributed to Fred. Fred
had a l lot of good ideas, some well made products, and he
has, in my not so very humble opinion, a penchant for
opinions rendered as scientific fact without any supporting
evidence, and quite often a fair bit of evidence to the
contrary.
He's not alone in this. Humanity as a group labored under
the misapprehension that if an object weight twice as much,
it would fall twice as fast, despite fairly obvious evidence to
the contrary, for some thousands of years.
>
>I'm perfectly OK with the answer: True, but who cares or it just
>doesn't make a significant difference. By rights, we all ought to
>test our own washers, with our own paper, with our own processing
>steps and find out how long we need to wash to get clean prints.
>Thats probably necessary and sufficient for all those who want
>the utmost from their prints.
You're absolutely right. No matter what you use, you had better
run tests.
Alec Jones
water exited from the TOP of the washer. You figure it out.
>
> Arthur
Sorry, Art, but that's a misleading statement. If you had any familiarity
with the Zone VI film washers you would know they work exactly like the
paper washers.
There is a tube inside a tube. The outer tube is shorter than the inner
tube. The reels go in the middle and water is funneled into that inner
tube. Because there is a spacer at the bottom, the water flow in the inner
tube is DOWN, going underneath the bottom of the inner tube, then up the gap
between the inner and outer tube [exactly the flow pattern of the paper
washer]. Because the outer tube is shorter than the inner tube, the outflow
simply goes over the top of the outer tube and into the sink. Therefore, if
[let's don't flame this issue again, OK?] the downward flow pattern is
beneficial, then the concept is consistent between the washers.
It's much easier to understand this description if you look at one in the
Calumet catalog.
Alec
Roy Harrington
Paul and Paula Butzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:00:20 -0800, Roy Harrington
> <r...@harrington.com> wrote:
> >
> >Your three "could have been"'s, while I guess possible, seem unlikely
> >usage of an archival washer by an accomplished and experienced
> >photographer.
>
> Not at all. No where does he take any precautions to prevent
> unequal distribution of fixer on the print when he puts it in the
> washer.
>
> No where does he take any precautions to prevent the print from
> sinking to the bottom of the washer, where the edge of the print
> will sit against the bottom of the washer and thus have only
> half the available area for diffusion of hypo.
>
> Apparently the washer was not run at all, but we don't really know.
> Tillman seems to be a pretty careful worker; perhaps he ran the
> washer for a minute or two (and thus prepped the washer with
> an unequal distribution of hypo because of water flow top to bottom)
> and then shut it off.
>
> I'm not saying that stratification of hypo doesn't occur, I'm just
> saying that this experiment doesn't prove it.
I'm not going to claim that he's absolutely proved something. But,
I do figure his usage of a washer is at least consistant with mine
or anybody else's usage of a washer and therefore there's at least
a reasonable chance that others would or could have similar findings.
At least many people use washers and sometimes leave the water flow
off for long periods of time -- I do since the washer is the holding
tank during the day's worth of printing.
I only thing I'm really trying to refute is the argument, that
"solutions do not settle out into their components, therefore the
heavy hypo argument is total bunk." I learned about solutions in
high school chemistry classes, but the simple lessons had nothing to do
with the MIXING of solutions. Mixing is a much more complicated
phenomena which takes time and very often involves a mechanical
stirring. Who among us ever mixes two solutions in the darkroom
without making sure there's some stirring action before usage?
>
> It does prove that if Tillman Crane puts prints in his washer
> and lets it sit overnight, the bottom edges are dirtier than
> the top edges.
>
> > Experiment design is a different skill but he does
> >say what he did and what he measured.
>
> The problem with his experimental design is that he doesn't
> say what he *didn't* do, and there are quite a few variables
> he has not controlled.
>
> There's an aphorism about experimental design - it's easy
> to measure anything accurately as long as you don't mind
> measuring six things with one measurement. It's when you
> want to measure ONLY ONE THING that it gets hard.
>
> >I find the most plausible
> >conclusion is to take it at face value -- the fixer congregated in
> >the bottom instead of mixing uniformly.
>
> Actually, the plausible conclusion is that SOMETHING in
> Tillman's procedure (and there are a lot of things it could
> be) caused the bottom of the print to have more fixer than
> the top.
I think this illustrates what I'm trying to say. If there is
ANYTHING at all possible that Tillman could do in his procedure
that caused his stated results, I think that refutes the
"uniform solution" argument.
I was hoping to sidestep the religious significance but you're probably
correct that that is impossible.
>
> >As Richard Knoppow said, this "heavy fixer" notion has been in the
> >literature since the 1920's or so. The "knee jerk" response to this
> >is always -- total bunk, 100% false, possibly fueled by the dislike
> >of Picker's marketing use of the notion. It just seems to me that
> >there is plausible evidence of the notion and why not just accept it.
>
> Probably the resistance is caused by the fact that photographic
> procedure is so laden with superstitious nonsense that it prevents
> people from making real progress. "Heavy hypo" appears to be
> one more bit of superstitious nonsense, rather like "split filter
> printing gives results unattainable by straight VC printing",
> another thing which seems to have some association with
> Fred. Or "Cold light heads give results not achievable with
> any other light source", something attributed to Fred. Fred
> had a l lot of good ideas, some well made products, and he
> has, in my not so very humble opinion, a penchant for
> opinions rendered as scientific fact without any supporting
> evidence, and quite often a fair bit of evidence to the
> contrary.
Quite true, there are lots of superstitions and Fred was good at
spreading them in support of his products. I just don't want
to fall into the trap of going from "Fred stated many bogus
facts" to the conclusion "Fred said it, so therefore its false".
I'm only willing to go as far as "Fred provides unreliable
information, let's look somewhere else".
>
> He's not alone in this. Humanity as a group labored under
> the misapprehension that if an object weight twice as much,
> it would fall twice as fast, despite fairly obvious evidence to
> the contrary, for some thousands of years.
>
> >
> >I'm perfectly OK with the answer: True, but who cares or it just
> >doesn't make a significant difference. By rights, we all ought to
> >test our own washers, with our own paper, with our own processing
> >steps and find out how long we need to wash to get clean prints.
> >Thats probably necessary and sufficient for all those who want
> >the utmost from their prints.
>
> You're absolutely right. No matter what you use, you had better
> run tests.
>
> -Paul
>
Roy
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/26/00 11:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <uOHj4.10342$ln.9...@news4.mia>
Arthur
Alec Jones
the flow pattern is first DOWN, then UP, just like the paper washer. The
principle is the same. Of course it exits from the top. I said that. So
does the water from the print washer.
Seems like you've lost your objectivity here if you can't understand that
statement.
BTW, if they are so awful, why do you still have them?
Alec
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000126145450...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <VKIj4.10479$ln.9...@news4.mia>
The film washer is fine. The print washer is lousy and I never use it. It has
dead spots and the printns touch the separators and the ceneter of the prints
are poorly washed. Wanna buy mine? 100 bucks and you pay shipping unless you
can pick it up. And if both washers flow off the top, then how can hypo settle
on the bottom? The entire idea is mindless and anyone who has taken basic high
school chemistry would know better. Your comment on my having lost my
objectivity is insulting. Please send me no more messages.
Arthur
Alec Jones
stand being challenged, huh?
I was just reading some of your back articles [I'm assuming you are the same
Kramer who used to write the column "View from Kramer"- if not, I'm
sincerely sorry for confusing you with a real expert] and see where you
recommended the East Street Gallery paper washer as the "Best washer for
conventional paper". Correct me if I'm wrong, Art, but they went broke
because Henry withdrew that washer after he found it was ineffective,
right? After that, why should one believe anything you say now about
washers? You did test that washer before recommending it, didn't you?
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I agree totally with Roy above [he may
or may not want my endorsement] when he said:
"I'm NOT trying to say or convince anyone that:
---Zone VI is the only good print washer.
---Picker is the genius who figured it all out.
---Everyone ought to junk the other washers and buy a bottom exit washer."
If someone comes along with something better that can be proved by actual
experiment, not "graphs", I'm all for it. Having spent a long working life
dealing with so-called "experts", I would caution against assuming all
"experts" know what they are talking about [see above for one example].
Have a nice day, Art. Don't take life so seriously. I don't know about
you, but I'm here simply to observe opinions from others, and state my
observations of 45 years enjoying this hobby where I've had personal
knowledge of the events involved.
Alec
Richard Knoppow
The same advise about washing in successive changes of water is
given in the Kodak publication _Black-and-White Darkroom Techniques_
KW-15 (cat 144 0809) with slightly different wording. G-1 says
"occasional interleaving" KW-15 says "continuous interleaving". This
sort of variation is not too unusual in Kodak publications where the
original source gets lost sometimes, I think.
In any case, the second makes more sense. If the prints are touching
no diffusion will take place.
AFAIK washing by successive changes of water can be very effective
but really requires constant agitation of the prints to insure the
maximum washing effectiveness. Standing water is not very effective
washing because of the tendency of the hypo to form a cloud around the
print. The cloud eventually diffuses into the body of water but the
whole process is much slower than if agitation is applied.
There is no question that washing prints or film by successive
changes of water is an effective way of washing.
Sandor Mathe
> I think this illustrates what I'm trying to say. If there is
> ANYTHING at all possible that Tillman could do in his procedure
> that caused his stated results, I think that refutes the
> "uniform solution" argument.
> Roy
Hardly, he only waited overnight what, 10 hours?
I remember a demo in one of my high school chemistry classes:
- fill a large graduated cylinder with water
(about 2 feet tall, 2 inches diam.)
- drop in a large coloured crystal of some water soluble substance
(copper sulphate was used I think)
- set it on a shelf where it will not be disturbed
- over the next 4-5 *months* watch as the blue colour slowly diffuses
*upwards*!!
Eventually you'll end up with a uniform blue colour throughout and either
no crystal left or a smaller crystal and a saturated solution. In any case
with zero turbulance, and zero temperature fluctuation, a completely uniform
solution will be the result.
--
Sandor Mathe
san...@ca.ibm.com
Dave
applying it to fiber based papers, the fixer in a print diffuses out
of the print only so fast. A flow of fresh water sufficient to carry
the fixer away from the paper as it diffuses out of the paper is all
that's necessary or beneficial to wash prints. A greater flow rate
just flushes water down the drain needlessly. (Of course, a lesser
flow rate will be counterproductive to the task of getting the fixer
outa' there!) When I first began shopping for an archival print
washer, I kept looking for one with a fitting for a firehose -- then I
learned that wouldn't be quite necessary! -Dave
Roy Harrington
Sandor Mathe wrote:
>
> Roy Harrington <r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>
> > I think this illustrates what I'm trying to say. If there is
> > ANYTHING at all possible that Tillman could do in his procedure
> > that caused his stated results, I think that refutes the
> > "uniform solution" argument.
> > Roy
>
> Hardly, he only waited overnight what, 10 hours?
>
> I remember a demo in one of my high school chemistry classes:
> - fill a large graduated cylinder with water
> (about 2 feet tall, 2 inches diam.)
> - drop in a large coloured crystal of some water soluble substance
> (copper sulphate was used I think)
> - set it on a shelf where it will not be disturbed
> - over the next 4-5 *months* watch as the blue colour slowly diffuses
> *upwards*!!
>
> Eventually you'll end up with a uniform blue colour throughout and either
> no crystal left or a smaller crystal and a saturated solution. In any case
> with zero turbulance, and zero temperature fluctuation, a completely uniform
> solution will be the result.
>
> --
> Sandor Mathe
> san...@ca.ibm.com
Yup, the long time period was precisely my point.
Deirdre Wiseman
>
> Boy oh boy!!!
> My original query on whatever happened to F.P. sure got the juices going
> didn't it? (yes I did start this roller coaster a few weeks back). There's
> some pretty hot blood flowing out there! (kind of reminds you of the 70s
> camera club types warring over Nikons and Canons doesn't it?).
The argument between Nikons and Canons ended in the 70's?
Arch
Daniel Grenier
My original query on whatever happened to F.P. sure got the juices going
didn't it? (yes I did start this roller coaster a few weeks back). There's
some pretty hot blood flowing out there! (kind of reminds you of the 70s
Picker left no one indifferent. Lets face it though, he was a good thing to
large format photography. Because as far as I know, no one quit the medium
on his account..... but a lot of folks joined our medium (partly) because of
him. And that's a good thing. I must say he was somewhat instrumental (back
in the late 70s) in my trading all my 35 mill stuff for an 8x10 outfit
(which I still use). Our medium is better now because of - or in spite of -
him.
So relax guys, go out and take pictures or something. In the end, who really
cares what happened to Fred anyway? He did his thing and he's out now. He
made possible some very interesting hardware, took many debatable stands,
and made a lot of lousy pictures in the process. Anyway, enough F.P. for me.
I'm taking my 8x10 and I'm going for pictures. See Ya!
P.S. Cheers to you Fred Picker - wherever you are. You still have stirring
power man!
Daniel G.
daniel...@home.com
Alec Jones <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BStj4.8394$ln.9...@news4.mia...
GaryB
that has been faced with this problem many times in other situations.
This problem is not just a photographic problem.
Is the tea in suspension or solution? If it does not dissolve and it
has a particle size it could be in suspension. Brownian motion will
only keep it in solution if the particle size is very small (about a
micron or less). Brownian motion is the motion of the solute (water)
molecules hitting the particles and keeping them in motion.This is
usually attributed to biological entitys.Only dissolvable materials
will go into solution.
A solution of Sodium thiosulfate (a deliquescent compound) is very
soluble in water. A solution of any salt will be denser than the water
itself.
Lets get to the heart of the question.
A sheet of film is put into a print washer ( I use a Kostiner aerated
washer), if the water in the washer is motionless, the hypo will
dissolve into the water and form a dense salt solution. It will slide
down the side of the print to the bottom and settle if there is no
agitation. If left long enough it will disperse into the water in the
washer, DEPENDING ON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER. Molecular motion or
the speed of the molecule will determine how fast this will take
place. The speed of the molecule is ONLY determined by the temperature
of the solution.
Picture a bell curve. At any temperature some molecules will be moving
fast and some slow; but the median will be at the peak of the bell
curve. Those at the upper end of the bell curve will have the escape
velocity to get into the solution. This is also what will cause
boiling or evaporation. As the temperature rises the bell curve
advances to the upper end of the temperature scale and more molecules
can attain the escape velocity to go into solution.
Now, I assume that most of us photographers would like to wait a
reasonable time before drying out prints. So, agitation of the wash
solution will keep the salt in solution and wash it away. It would
only take a mild current of water. Molecular forces at that level are
not very strong.
I hope that this helps.
I was in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria this week on business and
REALLY hated to come back to the Boston area. Luckilly I will be back
in a few weeks (to CA).
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 04:42:25 GMT, dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard
Knoppow) wrote:
>GaryB <gj...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:35:22 -0800, Roy Harrington
>><r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>John Hicks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's the bullshit. How is a solution diluted by more water heavier
>>>> than the resulting solution? I suppose HC-110 stock sinks to the
>>>> bottom of the graduate that the working solution is made in, or D-76
>>>> stock sinks to the bottom when it's diluted 1:1? Pour some water into
>>>> your glass of tea and see if the tea sinks to the bottom.
>>
>>In fact the tea does sink to the bottom if it is not stirred.
>>
>>Most chemical solutions are denser than water and unless stirred they
>>will sink to the bottom of the vessel. I once had a lab technician
>>that poured two solvents together without mixing. The next day you
>>could see two different layers of liquids due to the difference there
>>diffraction
>>>>
> Lots of stuff snipped...
>
> My question here is _has_ the tea gone into _solution_ or is it a
>_suspension_.
> My understanding is that a somthing which goes into solution will
>diffuse throughout the solvent by means of molecular forces or
>Brownian motion or convection in the absence of some strong stirring
>action.
> Again, if my understanding is correct the hypo and reaction products
>from a photographic emulsion will diffuse out of the emulsion at a
>rate dependant on the relative concentration of the substance in the
>emulsion vs: the solvent. In the absense of some force to move it away
>from the surface, it will form a cloud around the area, which will
>slowly diffuse out away from the emulsion suface. The relative
>difference of specific gravity of this cloud may start some
>convection, which I suspect would accelerate the process. But, the
>hypo would continue to diffuse into the body of water in the tank (or
>whatever) until, eventually, an equilibrium condition would be reached
>where the solution in the tank would be uniform and no more would
>diffuse out from the emulsion.
> I don't believe a condition would ever be reached where there would
>be a stratification of hypo solution and just water. My understanding
>of the principles of chemistry is that this is impossible.
> OTOH, something which is in _suspension_ may eventually precipitate
>or become stratified.
> I would give as an example of a solution dissolving some dye in a
>tank of water. If you put a few drops of something like beet juice
>(its handy) in still water it will form a cloud which will slowly
>spread out until the entire tank is uniformly stained. I think this is
>more analogous to what happens with hypo than tea.
> In any case, as has been pointed out elswhere, (there are now at
>least fifty responses in this thread) if there is agitation of the
>solvent even a suspension would not fall to the bottom of the tank.
> The idea that hypo is heavier than water and flows to the bottom of
>a washer is not recent, I've seen it in photography books from the
>1920's perhaps even before.
>
>
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, Ca.
>dick...@ix.netcom.com
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/28/00 6:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <0mh49scgtrbsavb1i...@4ax.com>
Good analysis. But in simpler form we have two misceable liquids under
agitation conditions. They will form a uniform solution so under these
conditions. nothing will settle at the bottom. I say this in order to keep
simple things simple. (grin)
Arthur
John Volkman
> I have bought many an item from Zone VI over the past 20+ years; subscribed
> to their newsletter from day-one; and I even went to Newfane on a couple
> occasions back in the early 80s. I saw Fred Picker's Zone VI taken from a
> small, excellent supplier of good things to what is now an undefined,
> fuzzy, and odd fitting segment of Calumet. I was sorry to see the demise of
> Zone VI as I knew it but does anyone know what happened to Fred Picker? He
> seems to have disappeared from the photo scene. Just curious.... Thanks and
> happy Y2K. Daniel G.
It's my understanding that Fred had/developed diabetes and grew weary of dealing with it - gathered his friends and announced that he would no longer take his needed insulin. He passed several days later.