U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: apples to apples Javel to Chlorox

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.


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.


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?