[pure-silver] Re: contrast changes
- From: "Eric Neilsen Photo" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:01:39 -0600
Shanon, Light falls off with the square of the distance. If you measure the
actual distance from the negative to easel for both. Doing the math might
give you more to work with but it is also quite possible that light spill,
paper changes, temp, age of developer etc are all at work. When variations
come to visit, it is best to gain a more acute awareness of all the little
things. Then you can apply them to the data. So is it optical illusion or
real density difference? if so, what caused it? light change, paper change,
etc. Don't over look your timer. Is it digital? analog? Voltage change?
heaters and cooling system sometimes draw quite a bit and if they are on the
same circuit life is not kind.
Variations from batch to batch might indicate different things than
variations within a batch? are you seeing one or both?
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
_____
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shannon Stoney
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:20 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: contrast changes
The exposure times were the same. I just opened up the enlarging lens one
stop.
It was a new box of paper when this started, so maybe it was just that
batch.
--shannon
On Feb 27, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
There might be more than one thing at work here.
1. optical illusion
2. With longer exposure times, light leaks and safelight fog are more of an
issue.
3. Test strips should always be cut from the same box of paper.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Feb 27, 2010, at 23:10, Richard Knoppow wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shannon Stoney"
<shannonstoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:51 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] contrast changes
I've been making "work prints" for the first time: that is, enlarging to a
print on 8x10 paper and getting contrast right before bumping up to the more
expensive 11x14. Usually this works pretty well. But in my last printing
session, it didn't: the big print looked a lot "flatter" than the little
print, which looked fine, at the same paper grade.
I guess I could have agitated less, but I made two big prints and made a
point of agitating the second one so that this wouldn't be a problem. Could
larger paper be subtly different in contrast? Or could a bigger print just
"look" flatter?
--shannon
There may be other effects such as a reciprocity failure in the paper but
the comparison should helf find if that is happening.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
============================================================================
=================================
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.
http://shannonstoney-twors.blogspot.com/
http://branguslane.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonstoney/
http://www.eyeballkicks.blogspot.com
http://allfiber.blogspot.com
Other related posts:
