[pure-silver] Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
- From: "Ole Tjugen" <oftjugen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:10:23 +0100
As you can all understand, I have since abandoned the "max black" approach!
For a very long time I used test strips for exposure, test prints for
contrast (even if I ended up at grade 2 99% of the time), another test
print for noting burning times, and then the final print. Of course this
was frequently abbreviated to finding a base exposure, then printing the
whole roll!
My method now is similar, although I've replaced the test strip with a set
of measurements with a Ilford EM-10 meter. I have made a table of
paper/grade/exposure/density across the selection I have available, so
three readings of highlight, midtone and shadow gives me the density and
range of the negative, as well as indicating whether extensive burning
will be necessary to get the tonality I'm after.
Using a colour head, a meter reading of 85 will give a very light gray,
almost white, at all settings with Ilford Multigrade exposed for 10
seconds. Deep shadow changes from about 20 to 58 with increasing magenta
filtration. Since my colour head also has a "N" channel, I set the meter
to 85, put it in a highlight, and adjust the "N" until the illmination is
correct. I then do the other readings, look up the grade, change
filtration, meter back at 85 in the highlight, adjust "N", print.
And burning is still an extra, but at least I save on the test strips!
Ole
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:45:38 -0800, David Swinnard <davidswinnard@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 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
> had a wordy section in here about what it is I do now, but I guess it =
> comes
> down to the collected experience of (decades) in the darkroom and what
> "works" for me. ->
>
> I'm curious to know what others take on this is (the exposing/contrast
> issue, not my inability to succinctly express myself), and more
> particularly, why.
>
> Dave
> (I think, I think, so maybe I am? But don't quote me on that.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of DarkroomMagic
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:15 PM
> To: PureSilverNew
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: POP with paper negs?
>
>
> That was unfortunate advise! Expose paper for the highlights and control
> =
> the
> shadows with contrast. That works much better in almost all cases.
>
> Regards
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
> On 12/13/04 9:53 PM, "Ole Tjugen" <oftjugen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> When I first learned printing, I was taught
>> to expose for maximum black.
>
>
> =============================================================================================================
> 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.
>
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
=============================================================================================================
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:
