RE: Dmax of VD prints

[Keith Gerling <kgerling@ameritech.net>]

I was using Uno and Lanaquerelle.  Kallitypes on these papers, using the
same negative and no contrast intensifier in the Sodium Acetate developer,
works fine.  The borders are weak too, suggesting that the prints needed
more exposure, which would have blocked the highlights.   I think I'll just
stick to kallitype.

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:58 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: Dmax of VD prints




On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Sandy King wrote:

>
> Yes, you would get a flatter print with VD than kallitype,  if  (1)
> you were using a negative with a very high shadow value density and a
> relatively low density range and 2) exposure was carried out to just
> reproduce textured whites.
>
> On the other hand the actual DR requirements of VD and traditional
> kallitype are very similar, so if you have an optimum negative (one
> with a low shadow value density and with a total DR of about 1.4-1.6)
> you should get prints from the two processes with similar tonal
> values and Dmax.
>

Sandy, tho I understand your reasoning & accept that that could be reason
for low D-max... In a heap of VDB printing of my own & attention-deficit
undergrads, never saw it happen.

I don't recall however if Keith mentioned the paper. There are a few don't
like VDB. Was there a surround, or border on the print?  If so, how was
the D-max?  If it, too, is low, it's not the neg.

Either way, print a 21-step, which tells all at a glance.

Judy

.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor                           >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography     > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org                         >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................