[pure-silver] Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
- From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0500 (EST)
From: David Swinnard <davidswinnard@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [pure-silver] NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:45:38 -0800
> Like Ole, I too was originally taught to expose paper for the
> shadows (having inspected the negatives first for "detail" so as not
> to attempt = to try print it where it didn't exist) and then control
> the rendition of = the highlight tones with the paper grade (then VC
> filters). Later, on upon reading and talking to others, I did it the
> way Ralph discusses, = now...
I use whatever is important in the image as the basis of adjustment.
Picking some arbitrary density as the magic point does not make sense
to me. Everything else goes from there. How I manipulate that
"everything else" depends on the material.
One good thing about using one paper for years is that, when I change
grade from x to y, I know about how many per cent increment or
decrement in exposure time is necessary to match the density on that
target. THis is very easy to describe graphically on the density
v. log exposure plots for each grade.
I have no experience of using any of those old products myself, but
based on several emulsions I have been making and printing with, I get
some feeling about how old enlarging papers behaved. Maybe Richard can
fill in this one.
Modestly digested chlorobromide papers change density and contrast
during development to some extent, even in phenidone based print
developers. Highlight details and density grow to certain extent
during development. If this is the case with old enlarging papers, it
may make sense to adjust exposure for important dark areas and then
adjust highlights by paper grade, and fine tune with development.
Modestly digested iodobromide papers change density but I don't see
much contrast change. Also, when I digest a chlorobromide emulsion to
get near optimal speed and contrast, development has little effect on
contrast. Changing developers also have little effect on contrast. I
guess these are the situations with today's commercial papers.
Which type of emulsion is more convenient to use? The answer is
obvious. Which type of emulsion makes richer shadows? I've seen
richer shadows in the latter category more often, given same coating
weight of silver. But if I keep just one printing emulsion, I'd keep
the former, despite bit inferior blacks. It's also the one that makes
interesting tonality that gives the "old picture" look even when I
print the image from HP5 Plus exposed with modern optics. (High
fidelity reproductions and rich blacks can alway be obtained with
commercial papers and inkjet prints, so what's the point.)
--
Ryuji Suzuki
"Keep a good head and always carry a light camera."
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
