Yes I sure it is, but that for this batch isn't really an option. I called
Kodak this morning. For those interested for Tri X its 10% and for T Max
its 5%. Took about 2 mins off and we will see on the contrast. I knew that
there was a general rule of thumb, but couldn't remember what it was.
When I print them we will see but the negs at least look workable.
I really wouldn't cut back too much on development as contrast will suffer causing more problems with printing than excess density. Your negatives will be a bit dense but you should be able to print through without much problem. The suggestion to use Microdol or Perceptol is a good one.
Jerry
-----Original Message----- From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Blackwell Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:13 PM To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [pure-silver] Suggestions needed from the real experts here
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
============================================================================================================= 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.
