NEGS FOR PT/PD #2

[Bob Kiss <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>]

DEAR SANDY,
    I was referring to an earlier posting (in response to the original
question) that made it sound VERY difficult to make an enlarged negative
with a density range suited to PT/PD  from a camera neg originally intended
for silver-gelatin...that is why I made "beating a dead horse" sound more
difficult than it was...as a simile.
    I was making the point that it ISN'T difficult and requires only basic
knowledge of sensitometry.  I was taught by Rickmers and Todd who wrote "the
book" so sensitometry comes easily to me. But it IS easy to get a longer
density range negative from a shorter range one IF you have enough detail
where you want it in the first place.  I think we agree?
    And I agree with you that many of these "Short cut to the Zone System"
procedures take longer, are more complicated, and less accurate, than the
basic zone system sensitometry.
    Again I think we agree.  Yes?
                CHEERS!
                        BOB

----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy King <sanking@CLEMSON.EDU>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: NEGS FOR PT/PD


>
>
> Bob Kiss wrote:
>
>
> >
> >     If you have a negative with decent shadow detail and open (not
blocked)
> >highlights that prints well on your favorite silver-gelatin paper, with
some
> >testing, you should have no problem expanding the density range during
the
> >interpos-to-enlarged neg process (or, if you are feeling bold, with
direct
> >copy film) to yield a density range for any alt process you want.  One
needs
> >to know a bit of sensitometry  but sometimes we, on this list, persist in
> flagellating a moribund equine quadruped.
>
>
> In making an enlarged negative either directly by reversal (as per
> the Lawless method presented in a past edition of Post-Factory
> Photography) or by the interpositive route the most important
> consideration is good shadow detail, i.e. you should start with a
> well-exposed, or even slighly over-exposed negative. You can work
> with a negative that gives blocked highlights on the silver print
> perhaps this most likely indicates over-development for silver
> printing that may be just fine for one of the alternative processes
> that requires a negative with a high DR.  I have personally had more
> success with the Lawless reversal method than with the interpositive
> route. However, the interpostive method offers more control.
>
> BTW, there is an article in the current issue of View Camera Magazine
> on making enlarged negatives with interpositives using the Freestyhle
> APH(S) film. In the article the author writes that Freestyle actually
> sells two stocks of this film, one made in the US and the other in
> Japan. He recommends that you ask for the Japanese stock since it
> contains more silver and is better for making enlarged negatives.
>
> I am still trying to figure out what Bob means by sensitometry and
> "flagellating a moribund equine quadruped". Sensitometry is really
> fairly simple to learn, and very easy to apply once learned. Some
> people avoid sensitometry and point out that one does not need to
> know anything about it to make good prints, which is of course true.
> However, in its place we see a lot of personal systems for exposure
> and development control that appear to me to be a lot more
> complicated than the sensitometry that these people are trying to
> avoid.
>
> Sandy King
>
>
> --