Re: NEGS FOR PT/PD #2

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

Hi Bob,


Thanks for the clarification. And yes, I think we are in agreement.

Some people do make things out to be much more complicated than they 
really are. But I suspect these are the same people who are never 
able to appreciate the beauty of the forest because they keep bumping 
into the trees.

Sandy








>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
>>
>>
>>  --


--