Subjective evaluation of reflection densities is difficult. Backing off a step from paper-white is probably OK (the eyes are very good at the highlight end), but unfortunately, doing this on the dark end of the scale proves rather complicated and unreliable. I suggest the use of limited controlled lighting with or without a densitometer. I have a 100W bulb in my darkroom, which I use to evaluate prints at a distance of 6 feet. Prints checked under these conditions have good exposure and contrast. If you use too bright of a light source, you can separate shadows to no end, and final prints always turn out too dark and too contrasty. (Just try to hold undistinguishable shadows directly against a light bulb. You'll be able to separate them with no trouble at all). From a guy who's favorite negative was made by Stouffer (unfortunately). Regards Ralph W. Lambrecht On 12/24/04 10:24 PM, "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for your insights, Ralph and others.. I will (and do) test, I was > just looking for starting pointS. > I have your book and I plan on at least trying the colorhead calibration > test you describe. > > My testing of paper scale is somewhat objective since I don't have a > reflection densitometer. But when I expose a sheet of, say, Berrger No 2 > under a step wedge and develop it in Ansco 130, I get a range of 13 - 14 > steps on a 21 step tablet between pure white and maximum black. Now, this is > truly black when seen under a bright light. That gives me a scale of almost > 2.1. Even if I back off one wedge from max black, I'm getting 1.95 as my > scale. If I back off one wedge from paper white, then the scale from Z II - > Z VIII becomes 1.80. I could keep coming in from the extremes to reach a > scale that relates to published grades, but I then wouldn't know what that > meant in terms of brightest white or blackest black. I get a scale for > Fortezzo 3 (the hardest paper I use) in the same developer at 1.7. > > I know there's a thousand ways to screw up subjective testing, but I've done > this repeatedly, and even though I'm inconsistent with the institutional > knowledge, at least I'm consistent in my own lab. I also develop my negative > to an average gradient of 0.62 to get me within range of the > papers/developers I use.. and it usually works in my favor. > > None of this means I won't learn something different tomorrow and change > everything @! > > Thanks again. > > J.R. Stewart > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DarkroomMagic" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "PureSilverNew" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 8:44 AM > Subject: [pure-silver] Re: VC printing equipment Was: Replacement > forBromofort paper; > > >> If I read between the lines correctly, you are somewhat hesitant to test. >> I >> suggest to overcome this hesitation. It is my experience that these tests >> take less time then people expect and contain the opportunity to learn and >> turn trial-and-error into experience and knowledge. Nevertheless, here is >> my >> opinion about some of your questions. >> >>> 1. I use a Thomas Safelight now and with fixed grade papers I don't have >>> to >>> worry about fog... should I worry about VC papers under a Thomas? >> >> The Thomas Safelight has adjustable baffles, changing the light output >> dramatically. No safelight is really safe and all need to be tested. The >> result of the test is not, if it is safe or not, it will give you a time >> for >> which it is safe enough. Test! Would you like a copy of the test >> procedure? >> >>> 2. I know I can test, but can anyone give me a hint on which filtration >>> will >>> best match what I have today in my cold lite lamp? Is that 0Y/0M? >> >> No filtration will be close to a grade 2, but a test will reveal of paper >> grades possible with this head. Many paper manufacturers give starting >> points for their papers. If you don't want to test, start with 30Y/30M and >> dial in more yellow to go softer and more magenta to go harder. The >> benefit >> of the test is that you can maintain highlight consistency when changing >> paper contrast. Would you like a copy of the test procedure? >> >>> 3. Are VC papers as sensitive to different developers as fixed graded >>> papers? I use Ansco 130 (softest), Ansco 120 (normal), and Beers for >>> added >>> hardness. Again, I know I can calibrate my new Dichro for each >>> paper:developer combination, but should I expect to need to? >> >> I don't know the answer to this, because I only use one paper developer >> (Dektol). I am about to try Neutol soon, because Dektol is increasingly >> difficult to get over here in Europe. Changing contrast with a color head >> is >> easy enough. I see little need for multiple developers. >> >>> 4. Can anyone recommend an especially long scale VC FB paper? I prefer >>> neutral tone. I typically print to a scale close to 1.8-2.0 today. >> >> Not sure what this means. Normal paper contrast is around 1.05. A grade 0 >> is >> around 1.55! >> >> Good luck with your color head. I think they are great for VC printing. >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Ralph W. Lambrecht >> >> >> >> >> On 12/24/04 1:39 PM, "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Well, after a round of several prints that I had to fight to get to the >>> right contrast using my cold lite head and fixed grade paper and >>> adjusting >>> developer and development time, I decided to try VC. In January, I'll >>> take >>> ownership of a Super Chromega Dichro II head to put on my D2. It cost me >>> about the same as converting my non-VC lamp to a V54 lamp. >>> >>> Some things I should have thought about before: >>> >>> 1. I use a Thomas Safelight now and with fixed grade papers I don't have >>> to >>> worry about fog... should I worry about VC papers under a Thomas? >>> >>> 2. I know I can test, but can anyone give me a hint on which filtration >>> will >>> best match what I have today in my cold lite lamp? Is that 0Y/0M? >>> >>> 3. Are VC papers as sensitive to different developers as fixed graded >>> papers? I use Ansco 130 (softest), Ansco 120 (normal), and Beers for >>> added >>> hardness. Again, I know I can calibrate my new Dichro for each >>> paper:developer combination, but should I expect to need to? >>> >>> 4. Can anyone recommend an especially long scale VC FB paper? I prefer >>> neutral tone. I typically print to a scale close to 1.8-2.0 today. >>> >>> Thanks for any advice! >>> >>> Happy holidays, everyone. >>> >>> J.R. Stewart / Leesburg VA >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "J. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:23 AM >>> Subject: VC printing equipment Was: Replacement for Bromofort paper; >>> >>> >>>> I've been wondering lately whether I ought to go the route of converting >>>> to >>>> variable contrast. I used VC years ago, using filters (not a color >>>> head). >>>> I'm a bit reluctant to return.. the quality in those days wasn't near >>>> the >>>> quality of graded papers. Has that changed in the last 10 years or so? >>>> .... >>>> I know a lot of really good photographers are using VC. Plus, I think >>>> I'd >>>> like the ability to do split grade printing, and I sometimes like softer >>>> papers than anyone can get in a graded form. >>>> >>>> I have a 4x5 D2 with cold lite head as my main enlarger.. standard light >>>> source (i.e., not the VC). Would it be a major investment to equip >>>> myself >>>> with the gear to use VC? >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: <XRadar@xxxxxxx> >>>> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:04 AM >>>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Replacement for Bromofort paper >>>> >>>> >>>>> In a message dated 9/17/04 10:09:12 PM Central Daylight Time, >>>>> jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes: >>>>>> Can anyone recommend a close replacement for Bromofort graded fiber >>>>>> base >>>>>> paper? >>>>> >>>>> Have you tried Bergger graded paper? Not much choice for graded. >>>>> Ilford >>>>> Gallerie, Oriental Seagull and the Bergger for cold tone. Probably >>>>> some >>>> that I >>>>> haven't seen. Guess I'm contributing to the decline as I'm using >>>>> mostly >>>> VC >>>>> now. Just so much easier and easy to keep fresh supply. But still >>>>> have >>>>> a >>>> lot of >>>>> the old Seagull #1 in the freezer for the right image. >>>>> Chuck >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ===========================================================================>>>> = >>>> ================================= >>>>> 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. > > > ============================================================================== > =============================== > 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.