From: Scott Wainer (smwbmp@starpower.net)
Date: 12/31/02-03:42:36 PM Z
Hey Judy,
Just got home and popped two of my reversal process negs on the old
densitometer. On the first one I got a f+b of .17, a shadow of .42, and a
highlight of 2.10 for a grand total of 1.68. The second came in at a f+b of
.08, a shadow of .25, a highlight of 1.85, and a grand total of 1.6. I think
my problem is partly that I didn't use a step wedge and that my initial
exposure was too light making the estimated "white light" exposure too
little. It is either that or I miscalculated somewhere along the line.
I use two enlargers when I make negs via Liam's process. One is used for
enlarging the negative, the other is for the "white light" exposure. I used
a light meter to measure the amount of light from the first enlarger and
adjusted the head height/f-stop of the second to match the first. Once I
found the "normal" exposure I made a 3x "base" exposure and a "white light"
exposure at approximately 50% of the "base" exposure. Processing was as per
Liam's recommendations though I used Chris Patton's E-72 (my normal for
paper) developer.
I was in a hurry to make a print and didn't bother with figuring the density
of the original neg. That could be one problem; as is subjectively judging a
"normal" positive in the stop bath. BTW, do you judge under safelight or
white light? I have noticed that the unfixed film changes slightly (darkens)
when the white light is turned on.
The rest is history. I re-made the neg - giving more "base" and white light
exposure - and printing times dropped to about 10-15 minutes. I don't thing
the chemistry is bad since I got it from Photographer's Formulary about 2
weeks ago and just mixed it after the dismal results with Ware's formula. It
might also be that I like to see a really, really deep blue that I only get
with increased exposures even with a "hit" of hydrogen peroxide after
development. I use a formula of 100g fac/500ml water for part A and 40g
pf/500ml water for part B. Would increasing the strength of A & B or either
separately render a deeper blue? That way I could drop printing times even
more, say around the 8 minute mark.
As for your comments on PF #8 - what a shame. You would think that in this
age of "high" technology that we should be able to pass such physical
limitations with ease. At least the manual printing press is not in use
anymore. Keep up the excellent work!!!!!
Cheers, from a non-recovering informationoholic
Scott Wainer
smwbmp@starpower.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Cyan and Digital Negs
> Hi Scott -- OK, I'll bite -- then how come your lith negs are so "bullet
> proof"? What is the density? Have you checked them with a 21 step... or
> on densitometer?
>
> I mean I'm wondering if maybe there's something in your cyano mix that's
> slowing the exposure -- like dead k ferricyanide... ???
>
> Have you tested the emulsion with a 21 step? With lights you describe,
> exposures should be maybe 8 minutes...
>
> But if it's just the negatives -- have you considered "harmonizing"?
> that's a bleach & redevelop to get rid of some density but not wipe out
> highlights.
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Scott Wainer wrote:
> > PF #8 -
> > I'm looking forward to the next issue. With everything i've been hearing
> > about being in it, it sounds like it's going to cover everything;
possibly
> > more than 52 pages?
>
> I wipe out at 52 pages -- so does the printer -- that is about the limit
> they can staple without going to "perfect" binding.
>
> cheers,
>
> J.
>
> >
> > Thanks again for the comments; their always welcome.
> >
> > Scott Wainer
> > smwbmp@starpower.net
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST