Ralph, It sounded to me as if she just raised the enlarger to spread
the light to fill her paper with image. I don't think she did any
measuring. The little Ilford EM 10 is also a great little device for
this. It is quite easy to do a measurement and do the math. If light
spill is an issue in an increase from 8x10 to 11x14 there are
probably more underlying issue in that darkroom. That is not a big
change. I also don't put much into the change of size from 8x10 to
11x14 influencing contrast as both prints are still a hand held
event and not like going from a contact or 5x7 to a 20x24. Exposure
could very much be the issue as an underexposed print can be flat as
the dmax was never reached. however, without seeing the difference
we are all making guesses ; )
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 Ralph W. Lambrecht
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:06 AM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: contrast changes
That should work, but I understand it is also what Shannon did. If I
understand correctly, exposure is not his issue, contrast is.
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 28, 2010, at 13:59, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Shannon
One more thought. Exposure is the product of illuminance and time. By
opening up the aperture, you were able to keep the exposure time
consistent, but you increased the illuminance to provide the
increased exposure required to cover the larger format.
I have a Beseler color analyzer. I do not care to do color printing
anymore, but the thing works.
One use I have for it is just in situations like this.
I make 8" x 10" test prints, and use the same kind of paper (but
different emulsion numbers) for each size. When I get a print I
like, with the exposure I like, I measure the illuminance falling on
the paper with the analyzer, and then raise the enlarger head to get
the size I want for the larger print. I then open up the lens to get
the same illuminance. Since I use the same exposure time, this
should correct implicitly for reciprocity failure in the paper.
Since I use the same illuminance, this corrects for different
enlarger height and magnification ratio.
This procedure does not correct for flare in the darkroom affecting
the larger print differently, nor does it correct for any
psychological effects. In the past, with Kodak, Ilford, and Oriental
Seagull, I have not noticed much difference between different batch
numbers of the same papers.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:50:01 up 39 days, 9:10, 3 users, load average: 4.82, 4.75,
4.66
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
======================================================================
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.
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14450
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
