Re: Van Dyke Contrast

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sat, 22 Jun 1996 01:12:38 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, TERRY KING wrote:

> Judy
>
> You objected as follows to fixing VD/Ks by inspection:
>
> The idea of trying to gauge from a wet print whether the "first
> perceptible tone appears to be fading" is awesome. Especially since VDB
> has the most extreme dry-down known to the history of photography.
>
> The dry down Judy is what makes it work. It works beautifully. It works even
> better if you overexpose and bleach back in ferri. ....

Terry, I was so awed yesterday by your apparent ability to tell -- with
the ball, so to speak, in motion -- the point at which highlights finish
clearing and start bleaching, that I forgot to say highlights weren't the
issue.

My point in a thread about improving VDB contrast was about the
potential loss of D-max , ie., shadow density, from over-fixing.
Since one has presumably done some kind of test exposure, and one
presumably follows the same procedure each time, one has presumably "read"
highlights & exposed accordingly.

But over-fixing takes away from the possible D-max, ie., reduces overall
contrast. To determine when loss in darks occurs, you have to read dry
step prints, and if you don't compare at least two, one of them distinctly
*not* over-fixed, you won't know what the potential D-max is -- or I
won't. I suppose you carry that in your head.

I found that with standard VDB formulae on a one-ply drawing Bristol, loss
of D-max could be seen after 2-minutes' fixing. Since the more D-max, the
"contrastier" the print from the probably too-thin negative we began with
(remember the question was, why are my VDB's too flat), that seemed the
parameter to address.

> If I were working with somebody else's negative I would never dream of
using
> chrome intensification because of the risk of staining. I have seen students get
> negative. I had a guy turn up to an 'interneg' session with the only negative
> from his WW II wedding. It was so faint that it was difficult to see if there
> was anything on the film. Nobody had succeeded in making a print from it before.
> During the session, using PQ Universal and FP4, we contacted it back and forth a
> couple of times to produce a printable neg which printed well onto grade 5. It
> was warm glow time all round.

Since when are we talking about somebody else's only negative of a unique
and important event? Other possibilities you omit, BTW, are the only
existing negative of the Loch Ness monster, the blind orphan's sainted
mother,the UFO pilot kidnapping the poor little match girl, the doggie who
dragged Oliver Twist out of the burning building, & Leanardo painting the
Shroud of Turin. I was talking about the easiest -- and quickest -- way to
increase contrast in an ordinary negative intended for an alt-photo
process.

> As to cost, you can contact back and forth on quarter sheets of FP4 5 x 4 and
> then enlarge to contact interneg size. Extra cost about L1 with no need for acid
> or chrome salts.

Or I could go back to the original scene and get the fat lady to sing
again.... I meant to say that on the various occasions I have used it, I
have found chromium intensifier to be safe. When I was asked to help in an
emergency with someone else's important and too-thin negative, I contacted
it onto Kodak S0039, Direct Duplicating film, and developed about 3 times
as long as standard. But that really was not the topic.

Judy