Judy
You have to understand there is such a thing as OLR lag and we also keep
different times to you. Many of us read off-line and only log in once a
day to the list (or even less often) and our replies thus often take 24
hours - during which time you may well have posted.
You won't have read my comment on the message written some 12 hours before
yours when you posted.
Incidentally this was explained to you in the old times ;- as one of the
contributory factors to what was going wrong. I think it is yet another
aspect where a moderated list might make things clearer.
> -- I
> said $5.40 and gave the company name, address, phone # and web site.
>
> Meanwhile, as I said on page 39 of the article I was quoting from
> Post-Factory Issue #1, the Kodak Step Wedge no. 2 is nearly an inch
> wide,
> the Stouffer T2115 only a half inch wide. However, the Kodak has no
> numbers on it -- which I also mention, going on & on about how important
> those numbers are, listing all the EXTRA information they provide (as
> you
> can see from the illustrations accompanying the article). In fact the
> technician with computer at the Kodak 800 number told me that none of
> Kodak's transmission guides have numbers on the steps, which disqualfies
> them in my book, regardless of cost.
Some of us got over that problem simply by writing the numbers on them
ourselves. I think this is actually a better solution than getting them
pre-printed as I know that any densities I put on them are measured with
the same equipment as I'll use to measure negs. Of course you do need to
have access to a densitometer.
If you don't have a densitometer you can just write on 0.15, .030 etc and
it will all work just as well as if the manufacturer had put it on. Or if
you like you could number the steps 1,2,3.... Still works. I use the same
pen as I write neg numbers etc on large format with - permanent drawing
ink which is waterproof when dry.
Layering up the film will work by the way - film base and fog just
contribute to the overall density and so become irrelevant here - if the
total density of one layer is 0.15 then the total density of 2 would be
twice this. As I posted earlier this is really too small a step to work
with by this method.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s
Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations &
The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/