[pure-silver] Re: Polycontrast Paper Performance / Cold lite

  • From: "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:37:45 -0400

Thanks, Ralph. My factor is closer to 5-6. For instance, I 'normally' start 
seeing midtones at around 45-50 seconds and I pull it out of developer at 
240 seconds.  I just didn't recognize the term.. now I know. Thanks.

I think a practice of adjusting your development factor while printing takes 
some experience and probably some testing, doesn't it? Do you use a 
methodical approach for adjusting your factor? For instance, does reducing 
your factor from 6 to 4 consistently produce an increase of 1/2 paper 
grade?? Can one standardize this procedure?

Jim



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DarkroomMagic" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "PureSilverNew" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 5:57 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Polycontrast Paper Performance / Cold lite


> RC papers need to be developed-out. Pulling them prematurely results in 
> weak
> blacks and uneven development. FB papers, on the other hand, can be
> developed from 2 to 6 or 8 minutes with slightly increasing contrast.
>
> Factorial development is not covered in my book (yet), but it is covered
> briefly in AA's 'The Print'. Basically, you measure the time until you see
> the mid-tones developing. Then, multiply that time by a factor of 4 - 8 (I
> use '6') to get the total development time. Apply this consequently, and 
> you
> can make up for temperature and developer exhaustion changes, always 
> getting
> consistent contrast. It's a proven method that only works for FB papers.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
>
>
>
> On 10/18/04 8:06 PM, "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Remind me, Ralph, please: "factor of factorial development"? And why does 
>> it
>> apply only to fiber based paper? I don't recall seeing that described
>> anywhere... (not in your book is it??--if so just tell me and I'll find
>> it.).
>>
>> In a related post I made this morning, I reported a significant 
>> difference
>> between Ansco 120 and Anso 130M on the same paper. I wonder if the small
>> differences in paper response apply to developers of the same class, e.g. 
>> MQ
>> developers. Ansco 130 replaces HQ with glycin. It really has a longer 
>> scale
>> in my hands. It may also be due to my use of benzo as a restrainer in my
>> paper developers instead of Na bromide. Don't know.
>>
>> Jim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "DarkroomMagic" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "PureSilverNew" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:36 PM
>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Polycontrast Paper Performance / Cold lite
>>
>>
>>> My one-time experience with Selectol Soft brought paper contrast down by
>>> less than 1/2 grade. Since I get similar or better results with changing
>>> the
>>> factor of factorial development (FB papers only, of course), I gave up 
>>> on
>>> soft developers and the increased darkroom complexity they bring.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/18/04 6:24 AM, "Ryuji Suzuki" <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Charlie Thorsten <charlie_thorsten@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Polycontrast Paper Performance / Cold lite
>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>
>>>>> A better alternative (besides a graded paper) is to use a higher
>>>>> contrast filtration (say grade 2) and develop in a low contrast
>>>>> developer like Selectol Soft.  This will bring it down to between
>>>>> grade 0-1 but maintain better low values.
>>>>
>>>>> In my experience, anyway. :)
>>>>
>>>> Does it really work that way?  In my experience it's really hard to
>>>> modify contrast by anything like 1 to 2 grades. (Lith printing is a
>>>> different story.)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> =============================================================================
>>> ================================
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> ===============================
>> 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.
>
> =============================================================================================================
> 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.
> 


=============================================================================================================
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: