Good question. It¹s escaping me now. Will report back if I can find the book where I read it. ---Harry On 2/28/10 12:14 PM, "Ralph W. Lambrecht" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Harry > > What is the technical explanation you were given? > > > > > > > > > > > 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 18:05, harry kalish wrote: > >> There is a technical explanation for the reason why greater enlargements >> loose contrast. For greater enlargements, I have found that better prints >> can be produced from contrastier negs (or a highter contrast filter if >> printing on MG paper). >> >> Harry >> >> >> On 2/27/10 5:10 PM, "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 >>>> >>> Shannon, I think this is an optical illusion, its >>> fairly well known. One way of proving it is to overlay the >>> small print on the large one and see if there is a visible >>> difference in the shadow densities. The eye is pretty good >>> at matching brightness of adjacent areas so one can make >>> such comparisons visually with good precision. >>> 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 >>> <//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 >> <//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. > >