[pure-silver] Re: New color head "discoveries"
- From: "Rob Champagne" <app@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:39:37 +0000
Well no I'm not referring to log numbers at all. I've been through the=
numbers game and I have a densitometer and can do numbers if required but I=
much prefer the practical evaluation method. The best way to do that in my=
opinion is by using the AA method of adjusting neg development based on=
printing the 11 square patches as illustrated in the negative. I have a=
template I cut from mountboard which fits an 8x10 piece of paper. I just=
print my zone 0 thru 10 test negs onto a piece of paper using my standard=
print developer etc at the given figures for G2 Y+M on my enlarger. If the=
shadows aren't separated enough then I use some more film exposure. If the=
highlights need pulling back I reduce development. The result is that I=
know that my negs fit exactly onto a G2 setting and any discrepancies can=
be adjusted with contrast control on the enlarger. There is no need for=
number ranges. =20
Once again, it all depends on what enlarger filtration(if any) you use to=
calibrate your neg development. Problems may arise if you use both graded=
and VCpaper but thats your choice, i.e. you calibrate for one or the other=
with or without filtration.
Obviously you can do your calibration to how ever many stops of range you=
like, eg 8, 9 or 10 etc.
And yes, I know AA says paper batches vary from batch to batch so he didn't=
like calibrating to paper, but they are going to do that regardless of what=
your neg dev is calibrated to, so using an arbitrary paper batch (i.e. the=
paper batch you have to hand) to do your calibration on, is no worse than=
not calibrating to an arbitrary log range which you have to first work out=
to know what it is anyway.
At 13/01/2005 18:55 +0100, you wrote:
>I assume you are talking about the log exposure range, when referring to
>numbers from 0.6 to 1.8.
>Well, log ER 0.6 is about grade 4.8, log ER 0.8 is grade 3.5 and log ER=
1.55
>is grade 0. A log ER of 0.8 is a bit low, but otherwise, you are not all
>that far off workable conditions.
>
>As Richard said, dedicated VC filters get the most contrast range from VC
>papers, but I argue that you don=B9t need that. If I could only get grade 1=
to
>3.5 from my color head (I do actually get 0 to 5), I could still print 98%
>of my negatives. Sometimes I use a VC filter 5 to burn-in some local areas,
>but otherwise, the extended contrast range of filters is true but
>over-rated. And using a hard-contrast filter in addition to a color head is
>actually very convenient, since it avoids resetting the dials.
>
>I don=B9t see a real problem here.
>
>
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>
>Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 1/13/05 1:39 AM, "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Well, my Omega Chromega Dichro DII came in last weekend and I've begun
>> testing. with VC papers. First VC I've printed in 20 years.
>>=20
>> I've been using metol glycine based Ansco130 paper developer (modified by=
AA
>> and without hydroquinone).That's where I started. Problem is, the hardest
>> contrast I was able to get with 0Y/170M was about 0.8 on Forte Polygrade=
V
>> (boy is that paper really blue!!) and about 0.6 on Kodak Polymax Fine=
Art.
>> The softest contrast comes in about right at 1.8 (polymax) and 1.4
>> (polygrade).
>>=20
>> Glycine is a much softer developer.. is that why I'm able to get no more
>> than ISO ~3.5 on the VC papers... do the emulsions require stronger
>> developers for satisfactory development? I tested my graded papers under
>> white light exposure, developed them in A130, and acquired the right=
scale.
>> I developed all the test prints at 6x factorial so I would think that=
would
>> be sufficient, and I was able to get max black.
>>=20
>> I ran an Ansco 120 test last night. The test prints look better, but=
haven't
>> read them yet.
>>=20
>> Also, I learned that both of these paper are very sensitive to the Thomas
>> safelite... I ran a screening test and at 5 minutes exposure I got fog=
that
>> appeared as Zone VI reflectance.. So, I move the safelight, unplug it, or
>> change papers to one less sensitive, and retest. Such is life.
>>=20
>> J.R. Stewart
>> Leesburg, VA=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> 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.
>
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>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.=20
=============================================================================================================
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:
