FotoDave@aol.com
Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:28:12 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 3/7/99, PM 08:32:32, jribeiro@greco.com.br writes:
<<On the other hand, I have a chart of Dave's LC1 developer (fig 5 of PF#2))
giving a fairly straight line of about 16 stoufer steps! So, as I said before,
why not changing the first developer?
I remember Dave saying something that it would never reach the needed density
for reversing, but with no exposure time nor any combination of parts?
>>
I really don't know. The reason for the long scale is not because we can
change the exposure range, but because the contrast range become compatable to
the shoulder, then it appears to have a longer range.
While I myself haven't tried it, I think that if we expose to much (to get
high Dmax), then we will be exposing in the flat region, so we might not get
anything. But if you happen to have the chemical ready, you can certainly give
it a try. You probably don't even need to mix up LC-1, just start with D76 1+6
and see if it works.
However, I also said that I was going to give some suggestion. I haven't
really thought much about it, but I would like to throw the idea out. Maybe
some of you who have the setup and chemical already can give it a quick try.
Please don't laugh if the suggestion is really ridiculous. :)
I was thinking about using a soft developer (diluted D76 or LC-1), process it
with the exposure for a normal positive (that way we don't expose it to the
flat region and we can make use of the long scale of say LC-1), then reverse
it. As mentioned, Dmax will be low, so the reversed positive will have high
Dmin. Now use a reducer (I can never remember which is which, I think it is
the sub proportional, but I mean the one that simply reduce the overall
density). This way we can reduce the Dmin so that the positive will print
easily.
The parts that I am not sure are:
1. whether the reducer can reduce that much amount to get us good, printable
Dmin. Since some reducer can completely bleach out a negative/positive, I
would think that it should work although one might have to control the
strength.
2. whether that after reduction, the film will be very grainy.
If this reduction technique works, we should be able to take advantage of the
long-scale of LC-1 since we can make a positive that shows 21 steps of
separation! And the reversal process simply reverse it.
Would someone be interested in testing it? If it works, please let us know,
and you might have time to make it to PF #3 too so that we can all learn from
your tests! :)
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:56