From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 06/24/00-07:36:53 AM Z
I try to measure density range from the darkest shadow area where there is
any detail in the negative to the highest density that should contain
texture. However, with many negatives measuring from B+F to area of highest
density works well also. If you have exposed and developed correctly there
should not be much difference between the two ways of reading densities.
My limited experience with salt printing, using the the salting formula in
Spirits of Salt and a plain 12% silver nitrate sensitizer, with one coat of
each applied with a brush, suggests that the best DR for a negative to be
printed on salted paper is about 1.8, not 2.5 - 2.8 as was suggested in
another posting. I printed yesterday a 7x17" negative with a density range
of 2.4 (0.5 - 2.9) and the salting/sensitizer above could not handle that
much range.
Sandy King
>Some of the recent salt paper messages concerning density range of a
>negative prompt me to ask a question about measuring negative density range.
>Do you measure the area of greatest density (which may be an area such as a
>spectral highlight that is totally dense and of no importance in the final
>print) and least dense (such as an area of virtually clear film, which may
>also be of no importance to the print), or do you measure the most and
>least dense areas of anticipated significance in the print? I've usually
>done the latter but when I see people talking about density ranges of 2.5 or
>higher, I kind of wonder since this seems awfully high for the areas of
>least and most significance as opposed to areas of greatest and least
>density in absolute terms.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:46 AM Z CST