U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: uncurve/curve comparison on Loris' website

Re: uncurve/curve comparison on Loris' website

Thanks for clarification. I've seen (somewhere, maybe not here) people suggesting exactly that: using less dichromate (with a negative already calibrated for the greater dichromate) to increase the contrast to make sure the top tones fall off and leave paper white. So I was predisposed to believe that there are people chasing their tail in that fashion; I apologize for misreading your posts to think that you were one of them.

On Sep 28, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Loris Medici wrote:

It's not that way. You just determine the dichromate/pigment/gum amnt. that gives you exactly the density / saturation you need *which you're also able to get paper white* and you design the curve for that coating solution. This is my perception of the correct workflow. On the other hand, the original "pragmatic" solution I offered was for the case where one is willing to explore if there's an easier workaround instead of recalibrating for the new versions of the coating solutions...

Quoting Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>:

Sorry, the more I think about this the more it seems like watching a
dog chasing its tail. You start out with a (black) negative that
prints too contrasty because there's too much density at the top end of
the scale. To eliminate that problem, you make a colorized negative
with a lower DR. But if the color/curve takes out too much density so
you're getting tones where you don't want them, then you decrease the
dichromate to increase the contrast so that the lightest tones won't
stick. This seems like a merry-go-round that one might never get off