[pure-silver] Re: Suggestions needed from the real experts here
- From: Lloyd Erlick <lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:28:46 -0400
At 08:12 PM 6/21/2006 , Mark wrote:
>Well today was just one of those days. Working today with some Tri X pro
>400TX and was working with studio lights and a Minolta Flash Meter. Well
>somedays you just wake up dumb and today was one of them.
>
>Yep was working with 2 cameras one set at ASA 100 while the Tri X is 400.
>Want to guess which ASA the flash meter was set on and the really smart one
>today forgot to switch when switching cameras.
>
>Yep it looks like the Tri X got about a 2 stop over exposure. At least it
>will dense rather than thin negs. I thinking of cutting the development
>time down to compensate. Any recommendations on how much to cut it and if
>the explaination isn't too deep in chemistry Id appreciate it. I plan on
>using D 76 either straight or 1 to 1.
>
>Thanks for all the help
>
>Mark
>
>===================
June 23, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,
Over the eons I've accumulated some pretty dense negatives. A while ago I
decided to make some prints of a pregnant person who had posed for me, from
Tri-X negs that I over-exposed. I'm even fairly sure I over-exposed them by
the same two stops you did.
I think I developed them in Microdol-X undiluted. I might have reduced the
development time a bit, but this is a chancey thing. Too little development
will yield a weird tonality.
Anyway, I did not reduce time of development very much, and got very, very
dense negs. The prints took quite long enlarger exposures, and the first
couple of test prints were very crappy. But eventually I got the exposure
right, and saw what beautiful results were possible with 'generously'
exposed Tri-X. Skin tones work out gorgeously.
As a matter of routine, I expose film at half the manufacturer's rating. So
that accounts for one of your stops of overexposure. And a further stop is
really only enough to improve shadow response. In my opinion, Tri-X is not
"over-exposed" at EI 100. Different terminology would be appropriate.
Avoid developing too much, but avoid too little development even more. I'd
advise a developer that tends to lose speed, such as Microdol, with
development time reduced ten or maybe fifteen per cent. I wouldn't dilute
the developer. The prints might be better than your usual ...
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@xxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
--
The real problem with exposing Tri-X this way is longer shutter openings,
and hence motion blur in the results. I find the combination of Tri-X at EI
200, a tripod, and Xtol diluted 1+2 just beautiful. I use exactly the same
parameters for TMY. (All my remarks pertain to 120 format film.)
=============================================================================================================
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:
