Tom Ferguson (tomf2468@pipeline.com)
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:21:19 -0800
FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
>tomf2468@pipeline.com writes:
>
>> My experiments with APH have been with Dave's LC-1 development method.
>> Using 2:2:6 for LC-1 developer (VERY soft developer) my density range (of
>> original neg, intended to fit into an enlarged positive ranging from 0.45
>> to 1.05) was 1.0 at 30 seconds, 1.1 at 1 minute and 1.2 at 2 minutes and
>> 1.4 at 4 minutes. Using LC-1 at 2:1:7 (a more useful, general low contrast
>> developer for enlarged positives) my density ranges were 0.75 at 30
>> seconds, 0.85 at 1 minute, and 1.0 at 2 minutes.
>
>Thanks for sharing the data with us. The numbers look a little unusual to me,
>however. It looks like the 2:2:6 is more contrasty than 2:1:7, but you did
>describe 2:2:6 as "VERY low contrast" whereas 2:1:7 as "general low contrast,"
>which is how they should be. I think I am not reading your description right
>(somewhere I must have read it backward). Could you explain the figures a
>little bit?
What is probably confusing is the line " my density range (of original neg,
intended to fit into an enlarged positive ranging from 0.45 to 1.05)". Let
me explain.
What I found (and I believe what the graphs in PF#2 showed) was that an
interpositive on APH/LC-1 should have a highlight / zone 8 / slightly
detailed white of about 0.45DU. If the highlight is thinner than that
(0.3DU), they will loose separation due to the film curve leveling out.
Similarly the shadow / zone 2 / slight detailed blacks should have a
density of no more than 1.05DU. If the shadows are denser (1.15) they too
will loose separation. So my goal was to find what dilution of LC-1 would
fit an assortment of original negs into this rather "exact" 0.45 to 1.05
range for the interpositive.
Thus my contrasty original negs (1.0 DR) were matched to the "VERY low
contrast" LC-1 at 2:2:6. And, the more typical silver gelatin 0.75 DR negs
were matched to the "general low contrast" LC-1 at 2:1:7. I hope that
makes more sense.
I started using LC-1/APH trying to eek out a little more highlight
separation than my old E-6 film to FP-4 enlarged neg method provided. This
is the weak point of all optically/chemically enlarged negs. LC-1/APH did
provide slightly better separation. I was starting to print a new series
as palladium on cloth, which had less highlight separation than paper.
After at least 150ml of "METAL$" and MANY DAYS of tests I'm afraid my
favorite prints for this series are my oldest ones :-(
After all this work, the prints from my E-6/FP-4 enlarged negs on Fabriano
Uno Cold Press are my favorites. Uno Cold Press has a wonderful (although
I suspect artificial) wire laid finish. So, I'm returning to those methods
in the hope of actually creating some finished work!
I hope others will continue to work and experiment with LC-1/APH. It works
very well (better in the highlights), and is certainly MUCH cheaper than my
E-6/FP-4 methods. However: I am fully in control of the E-6/FP-4 method,
it is faster (the lab does the E-6, and I only have one "step" to get to an
enlarged neg), and is slightly "cleaner" (I get less "spotting" time with
FP-4).
Thanks to all for their help in this adventure.
Tom
tomf2468@pipeline.com
http://www.thefstop.com/tf.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:09:02