Abstract
AbstractThe work of Hurter and Driffield on development and their rather dismissive attitude to the process is discussed in relation to their contemporary critics who held that some control over the characteristics of the image could he effected via development. Among the critics was Armstrong who proposed an electrolytic model for latent image formation and development that was too far ahead of its day for current acceptance. Part of the reason for the misunderstandings in that debate was the different course of development of the new, amino developing agents being imported from the Continent at the time. The essential difference between the courses of development for the various agents is considered in the later work on the so-called induction period and on super-additive combinations of developers, such as those of hydroquinone with Metol or Phenidone. The electrolytic model of development, in which the rate is proportional to the area of the growing silver image, can account adequately for the course ...
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
