I bet that works Rob. Preflashing has saved me a couple times. It's not a common procedure. Justin will have to determine the amount of flash that produces the least amount of fog using non-image forming light, then half that to preflash the paper-- as a reference point, my preflash exposure is about 3 seconds with my 135 mm lens stopped down to f45 and about 25 inches away from the base board. A simple test strip should work, Justin. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Champagne" <app@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 7:50 PM Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame > Playing around with the image in photoshop shows full textural detail > throughout the image. I think he meant it is overexposed and such the > negative is very high contrast. > Selective pre flashing should bring the highlight detail in withou > overexposing the shadows. > > rob c > > > At 02/01/2005 21:51 +0100, you wrote: >>Justin >> >>Nice image, worth a try! >> >>Underexposed negatives have too small of a density range and need harder >>than normal paper. Overdeveloped negatives have too much and need softer >>than normal paper. Underexposed AND overdeveloped negatives are the >>hardest >>to print, because they have no shadow detail but a huge contrast. >> >> From what you tell us, it might just be just underexposed having trouble >>with the shadows. In that case, I would start with a fairly hard grade and >>test-strip until the highlights have the right exposure, ignoring the >>shadows at first. Then adjust the contrast to get the shadows right, while >>keeping highlight exposure on track. >> >>If you've done that, and your hardest grade was not enough to get the >>shadows dark enough, then do what Ryuji suggested, and up the exposure >>with >>your hardest grade until the shadows improve and bleach the (now too dark) >>highlights with farmers reducer. This technique simple gives the paper >>contrast an additional boost. Otherwise, always expose for the highlights >>and control shadows with paper contrast. >> >>Final shadow improvement can be made through selenium toning, but don't >>expect too much from that. >> >>Before I forget, I also recommend to burn-in the front carpet. Tell us how >>it went through another post. >> >> >> >> >> >>Regards >> >> >> >>Ralph W. Lambrecht >> >> >> >> >>On 1/2/05 4:11 PM, "Justin F. Knotzke" <jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> I have the following frame which I would like to print but can't: >>> >>> http://www.shampoo.ca/pics/xmas-day-2004.jpg >>> >>> I can scan it and with some tuning in photoshop can get what you >>> see above. But attempting to wet print it is nearly impossible. It's >>> simply too dark. I didn't have enough light and I didn't want to use a >>> flash so I underexposed and hoped for the best.. >>> >>> Can someone send me some tips on how I can coax this image out onto >>> paper? Every attempt I have made so far yields either too dark an image >>> or a greyish image with no real blacks. >>> >>> How should I go about trying to print this ? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> J >>> >> >>============================================================================================================= >>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.