Jobo atl3
in [Darkroom]
|
From: Darkroom User on 13 Aug 2010 04:18 David Nebenzahl;886997 Wrote: > On 8/12/2010 12:15 AM Darkroom User spake thus: > [i] > David Nebenzahl;886934 Wrote: > [color=green][i] > IanG;886420 Wrote: > > I was being sarcastic, but I do take your concerns seriously. My serious > > answer to your queries about pyro developers is really "don't bother". > It's not worth the hassle. You can get wonderful results using any of an > > array of readily-available conventional developers. So unless you insist > > on doing something peculiar, boutique-y and idiosyncratic, stick with > D-76/ID-11, Microdol-X, Xtol, etc. > > By the way, just curious: what's with the strange quoting style you used > > (putting previously-quoted material in ALL CAPS, with non-functional > "tags", like )? That in itself is kinda like using pyro. I'm > just saying ... > > > -- > The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, > with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. > > - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)I am posting through the Photo-Banter site: www.photobanter.com and those "tags" come up when I reply, although I do highlight certain quotes in bold type. By posting through this site, it helps to prevent receiving spam emails, although I am not sure if I am getting to read all of the replies to the threads. Thank you for your reasonable reply to stick with regular developers. I was curious to know why some people use pyro developers instead of normal non staining developers and what they perceive their advantages to be. I am here to learn from the more experienced photographers and darkroom users. :-) -- Darkroom User
From: David Nebenzahl on 13 Aug 2010 13:30
On 8/13/2010 1:18 AM Darkroom User spake thus: > I am posting through the Photo-Banter site: www.photobanter.com and > those "tags" come up when I reply, although I do highlight certain > quotes in bold type. > > By posting through this site, it helps to prevent receiving spam > emails, although I am not sure if I am getting to read all of the > replies to the threads. OK, you're forgiven: it's not your fault. The software you're using to post (Photobanter's forum software) is brain-damaged, at least where quoting text is concerned. Most of us here access Usenet (that's where these threads reside) the conventional way, using a mail client (aka "newsreader"), which shows the newsgroup the way [insert name of deity here] intended. You might try it yourself sometime. Actually more direct than going through a web site. And it's very easy to post without receiving spam: just do like me and use a phony "handle". Zero spam. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |