From: Brian Ellis (bellis60@earthlink.net)
Date: 06/27/01-02:17:44 PM Z
Negative contrast is controlled by exposure? I guess I'll be revealing my
ignorance here but I thought negative contrast was controlled by
development (i.e. as you develop, the shadows reach close to their maximum
density relatively quickly, the highlights less quickly, so as you continue
developing beyond a given point the highlights continue increasing in
density until the shoulder is reached, while the shadows remain
approximately the same, thereby allowing you to control the density of the
highlights relative to the shadows - that is to say control the contrast of
the negative - by increasing or decreasing development time. Wrong? If
wrong, and if contrast is in fact controlled by exposure rather than
development, how do you do it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sullivan FRPS" <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: POP Contrast
> Christine,
>
> Contrast is controlled by exposure. If you make a contrasty negative you
> get less contrast by printing it down. The shadows are self masking (to a
> degree) so as you print down the highlights come in. If you negative is
too
> soft, you are in a pickle.
>
> --Dick
>
>
>
> At 11:20 AM 6/27/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >I don't mean to sound like a poo, but, could we get back to the photo
stuff,
> >please?
> >I don't much care what people call themselves as long as they participte
> >intelligently and respectfully within the dialogue. It's really a shame
> >people have to be so negative. Its seems that because of the lack of
> >intimacy inherent in internet communication, people are much more likely
to
> >be harsh with each other. They often would not speak this way to
someone's
> >face.
> >
> >So, a plea to leave the negativity behind and move on to subjects more
> >photographic in nature.
> >
> >I had posed a question about controlling the contrast of POP prints.
Anyone
> >have any thoughts on this?
> >
> >-christine
> >
> >Judy Seigel wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Nick Makris wrote:
> > >
> > > > And as for JUDY, all those posts show a NYC time zone.
> > >
> > > Nick, it's 3:18 AM here right now -- are you sure that's a NYC time
zone?
> > > It feels more like, hmmmm, maybe Singapore?
> > >
> > > Judy
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST