Re: apples to apples Javel to Chlorox
I agree with what Loris says here.
I'm not sure where the calcium hypochlorite fits in, because
according to Nadeau, Javel water is dilute potassium hypochlorite,
but I'm not going to worry about it because I don't think trying to
reconcile present and past practices to such a precision is very
useful anyway, given in how many ways practices are different now.
kt
On Dec 6, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Loris Medici wrote:
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?
...
|