From: Tori Nelson (tori@inetworld.net)
Date: 05/16/00-08:26:06 AM Z
>Eric, Jeffrey and All,
>
>Thinking that perhaps the use of heat in the preparation of my last batch of
>Ferric Oxalate (you may recall the thread about boiling water for that
>purpose) I prepared a new batch of FO and printed both the new and older
>without any H202. The results indicate no readily discernable difference
>between the three prints (the third being the original one that caused this
>thread). Although the one from the new FO (no heat) *might* have the tiny
>bit more detail in one area.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but, this leads me to believe that I have a
>digital neg from a Lightjet 5000 that has a contrast range greater than the
>potential of my printing method. Not having a sensitometer, I'm not able to
>provide any specifics.
>
>This method includes equal amounts of FO and PD, applied with a half inch
>(home made) plexiglass rod (idea provided by William Laven) developed in a
>cold bath developer. BTW, I soak my prints in for a short time in a water
>bath after the developer. They appear to clear almost immediately after
>entering the EDTA bath.
>
>Is it possible to have a neg that has a contrast range too great to print
>with PD & FO???? I have not tried to print just for the shadows with my
>current chemicals although recall that I was able to print those details on
>RC paper.
>
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Nick
Nick,
As the self-proclaimed "Queen of Contrast" (not a position I would
recommend), yes, unfortunatley it is possible to have negs with too much
contrast!!!
Tori
Tori Nelson
Imagine This, Fine Art Photography
9422 Keck Court
San Diego, CA 92129
858-538-3949
858-663-4241
Member ASMP
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:20 PM Z CST