[rollei_list] Re: OT: development
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 19:03:32 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:47 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: development
> On 5/21/05 6:30 PM, "Eric Goldstein"
> <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
>
>>>> You can selenium tone negs. And Ansel selenium toned
>>>> Moonrise as it needed a
>>>> little extra contrast.
>>
>>
>> Ansel did everything possible to that neg; it was a mess.
>> Intensify, tone,
>> you name it. It was still a bitch to print...
>>
>>
>
>
> Selenium toning was in this case ALSO in the category of
> "intensification"
> As that is what it does. And is.
> In the darkroom handbooks of long gone with the wheels and
> paper samples and
> the charts it was always on the list of intensifiers. But
> on the bottom in
> order of effect.
>
> But The advantage being that while all other intensifiers
> makes for a neg.
> whose lifetime is tenuous selenium does the opposite. It
> makes for in effect
> "archival" negs.
> And makes them prettier too!
>
> And you're more likely to have it on hand than regular
> intensifiers which
> kills you quicker than Selenium does.
> Which is in vitamins. Perhaps explaining that rosy tan
> I've been getting
> lately.
>
> Negs are much less of an archival issue than prints as
> there are as there
> are no fibers like as in paper to soak up and lock in all
> the bad stuff.
> But the idea of selenium negs appeals to me.
> As to them themselves.
>
> They don't appear to really increase contrast all that
> much.
> But the color change for some reason makes of a more high
> contrast image.
> I guess you are projecting Silver Selenite instead of
> normal silver salts
> onto the print. The ramifications are overwhelming!
>
> And when you Selenium tone a print which has been made
> with a Selenium toned
> negative the rich rosy colors you get are amazing! :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
>
Another reason for the relative ruggedness of negatives
is simply the size of the silver crystals. Paper has very
fine silver grains, much finer than film (other than
microfilm) warm tone paper is finer than cold tone. Film,
OTOH is relatively coarse, even so called fine grain films.
Since the volume to surface area of the silver grain is an
important factor in its vulnerability to polutants the
comparitively low surface area of coarser grains make them
less vulnerable to oxidizing and sulfiding.
Also, typically negatives are stored better than prints.
At least they are not on display.
Microfilm has very fine grain and is also required to
maintain exceptional detail. That makes it vulnerable in two
ways. First, the super fine grain silver is itself
vulnerable to oxidation and sulfiding. Secondly, even very
small blemishes can destroy some data. So, microfilm must be
processed and stored with very great care. Some of the
protective procedures for microfilm are applicable to film
and prints but are often not worth the trouble and expense
for pictorial material.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
