RE: Dmax of VD prints

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

Judy Seigel wrote:

>
>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

Yes, the border should tell the story. If you don't have good Dmax 
there then the negative is not the problem.


As for tests with the step wedge, I wonder what kind of tonal range 
people are getting with VD, and if this varies with papers? I ask 
because my understanding from the literature is that the process has 
a exposure scale of about 1.4-1.6, or about 5+ stops. Yet the 
sensitizer I mixed up a few days ago, to the exact specifications of 
classic VD, has an exposure scale of about 2.7, or nine  stops. That 
is, the step tablet has the first maximum black/brown in step #2 and 
there is separation between the steps all the way to step #19. This 
test was made with single coating on Arches Aquarelle, exposure with 
sunlight, in shade facing north sky. I have some negatives with 
really long DRs that should print well with a 9 stop range but am 
surprised that it is so long.

Sandy King