Re: apples to apples Javel to Chlorox

[Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>]

Hi Chris,

Sure, but the main point - as I understand it - is not the possibility of
getting better midtones separation; it's being able to get both *full /
smooth tonal range* + *convincing blacks* with a *heavily pigmented coating
solution*, *in just one printing*.

I think I would never get such nice gradation and dmax - following the
standard / mainstream procedure - by distorting the tones in the negative
excessively so that it would print OK with a such drastic coating solution.
Too much distortion = posterization = loss of subtle tonal gradation -> that
would cancel the purpose / advantage of using curves.

This is how I take bleach development.

Regards,
Loris.


> From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
> Reply-To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:59:49 -0700
> To: "Alt, List" <alt-photo-process-L@usask.ca>
> Subject: apples to apples Javel to Chlorox
> 
> ...
> 
> And one little itty bitty question:  this was all done before the digital
> negative era, so would have been really useful when printing film negatives.
> Does being able to curve a negative nowadays so easily, antiquate the use of
> Javel? In other words, If Javel does so well to open midtones as shown in
> Marek's comparison, couldn't one just open up the midtones by curve
> adjusting today?
> 
> ...