Re: was Miracle size for gum now tonal range

[phritz phantom <phritz-phantom@web.de>]

hi marek,
sorry, i can't offer these test strips either.
i only tested the saturated dichromate (~25%) and 1/5th of the strength 
(5%) at double exposure.
since i was going for maximum contrast for shadow exposures.

i don't know if anyone else experienced the abrupt end of the curve in 
the highlights, but for me it looks like that there is a practical end 
to the linearity of the process, caused by movement in the water, which 
can never be exactly repeatable.

also i think i've seen that small highlights in dark areas take longer 
to clear than bigger bright areas. a bit something like a chain 
reaction, one particle of gum going off and takes the next one with it.
did anyone else ever see this?

phritz


Marek Matusz schrieb:
> SO actually 3 test strips should be compared.
>
> case one 1x dichromate 1x exposure (your usual working scenario), it will
> require shorter development
>
> case two: 1x dichromate 2x exposure
>
> case 3: 2x dichromate 1x exposure
>
>
>
> I have done these and can not find the dfifference between cases 2 and 3,
> now of course case one will show shot scale, because we have learned to
> underexpose gum with thin negatives
>
> WOuld somebody show me test prints of cases 2 and 3 showing any
> difference?
>
> I actually ruined my set by leaving them a bit longer for development and
> then forgetting about them for a day, so I need to make another set for
> show and tell.
>
> Marek
>
>   
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/>