Re: Platinum/Paladium testing

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 11/02/01-07:06:26 PM Z


Nick,

OK, I didn't realize you had good black in the border. In that case I do
wonder if the film material you're using is a heavy UV blocker. That's not
an area I've done any testing in so can't advise there. ---Carl

(IOW= In Other Words...)

--
        web site with picture galleries
        and workshop information at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/

---------- >From: Nick Makris <nick@mcn.org> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca >Subject: Re: Platinum/Paladium testing >Date: Fri, Nov 2, 2001, 5:00 PM >

> Carl, > I am getting good rich blacks in the border area. I just can't even come > close to matching it in the neg area, no matter the exposure. > > As for the paper, it's the same old Cranes, I think I've got the coating > figured out after a few years at this, the humidity is up slightly from 64% > to 69% and as I said, I also changed my developer with no benefit. I can't > believe the sensitiser is at fault otherwise I wouldn't get any deep rich > black at all. > > I suppose I could try 10 or 12 minutes, but the rich borders come out at 3 > min. There is only a two stop difference between no B+F and B+F. It could > be that the Epson Backlight film (that's what I am using) has some UV > filtering effect. I may have to resort to some other substrate in order to > obtain my goal of good density/exposure throughout the range. > > Nick > > BTW, what's IOW?? It's not on my list of abbreviations. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carl Weese" <cweese@earthlink.net> > To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca> > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 12:38 PM > Subject: Re: Platinum/Paladium testing > > >> Nick, >> >> Under normal circumstances (whatever they are) even two-three minutes >> exposure to UV tubes should give a rich black tone to "border" areas. The >> tubes certainly shouldn't be gone with that little use, though I'm > familiar >> only with standard GE BL tubes, not actinics. Something could be wrong > with >> the paper, the coating procedure, the humidity level you are working at, >> etc, etc. IOW, it looks like there is a basic problem that has nothing to > do >> with the negative you are testing. How old are your chemicals, could they >> have been contaminated, what coating procedure, what humidity, what > paper?? >> >> ---Carl >> -- >> web site with picture galleries >> and workshop information at: >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/ >> >> ---------- >> >From: Nick Makris <nick@mcn.org> >> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca >> >Subject: Re: Platinum/Paladium testing >> >Date: Fri, Nov 2, 2001, 3:10 PM >> > >> >> > Carl, I was hoping to catch your interest, many thanks for the response. >> > Your concern for the adverse affects of chlorate may be correct in some >> > circumstances, however consider that on other tests in this series, with >> > exactly the same parameters except: >> > >> > One with 0 PC and 0 PT the blacks were somewhat flat. >> > One with 0 PC and 1 PT the blacks were also somewhat flat. >> > >> > Also, since my post earlier today, I made another test in which I > extended >> > the exposure to 7.5 minutes without getting any closer to maximum > density. >> > This is somewhat confusing. >> > >> > I also changed my developer only to find that I now have slower speed in > the >> > sensitiser. >> > >> > Could my Super Actinic bulbs be going out???? They are about 2 years > old >> > and I probably have made less than 100 prints with them. That might > account >> > for my unanticipated change in density - recall that I wrote: >> > >> >> For no apparent reason, a specific time I was using was no longer >> > producing the same density >> > >> > Thanks again, >> > >> > Nick >> > >> >


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/10/01-11:12:21 AM Z CST