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