From: David Eastman (clearemulsions@yahoo.com)
Date: 10/14/02-10:17:33 PM Z
Hi.
I haven't read everything posted here yet, but you
mention development by inspection several times...
Just curious... are you planning to do this with
straight regular chemistry...w/o any desensitizing?
I have one of those dark green panchromtic safelight
filters... even a pannchromatic safelight bulb... no
matter how long I stayed in the dark, my eyes never
got used to seeing in that more than almost 100%
usless amount of light!
I could almost see better without those safelights
turned on... Anyway the point is, those lights might
frustrate you something terrible.
I have never used desensitizers, but I would consider
trying them if you really want to do development by
inspection. Perhaps someone else with some more
experience can share their thoughts on this...
I wonder how valid the sensitometric data would be
when processed this way?
Ray
--- sstoney@pdq.net wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>
> As for the method of determining SBR I assume one
> can do
> > that accurately with a reflective reading if they
> know what they are
> > doing. In my own work I either use incident
> readings to
> > determine SBR or work with a spot reflection meter
> when I want to work
> > with Zones.
>
> That's what I do. I find Zone II and then the
> highest zone that I want to
> print, and the difference is the SBR.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Actually it goes from N to N+ 1.66.
> >
> >
> > That seems very strange. My tests with TRI-X and
> Pyrocat, when the
> > specified DR is 1.4, give a range of N-3 at 4
> minutes of development to
> > N+1.5 at 14 minutes development.
>
> I tested times of 5.5 through 22 minutes. The only
> reason I can think of
> that I get such a narrow range is that I am using
> tubes. It seems like
> when I processed 4x5 negatives in one of those
> Combiplan tanks, there was
> more difference between a 5 minute development and a
> twenty minute
> development. But you can't use those tanks with
> 8x10 film! I like the
> tubes, and now that I"ve calibrated everything to
> them I suppose I should
> stick with them. But I'm thinking of switching to
> trays and development
> by inspection, now that I have a well ventilated
> place to work.
>
> >>
> >>Yes. The trouble is, only the Ilford curves show
> the ISOs for the
> >> different curves. On the Azo chart, the ISO
> squares were left blank.
> >> Am I to assume that the ISOs for Azo are about
> the same as for Ilford?
> >> This is my main question.
> >
> >
> > The ISO, which in this case is really an effective
> film speed, is
> > related to time of development. It does not matter
> whether you are
> > developing for Ilford or Azo in this instance.
>
> Do you use the same film speed regardless of what
> process you are shooting
> for? What if you were planning to make a palladium
> print? Would you
> still use the same ISOs as you would for silver?
>
>
> >> He said I could use the same ISOs for
> >>all four papers, but could this really be true?
> >
> >
> > I assume you are talking here about effective film
> speed for the
> > film? The ISO of your papers is basically
> irrelevant since you can
> > control this with time of exposure.
>
> Yes, i mean for the film. What I mean is, I
> thought people probably used
> different film speeds when shooting for different
> processes. That is,
> sometimes people say to use a faster film speed when
> shooting for pt/pd
> for example, because you plan to develop the film
> longer, for a given
> density range. Therefore your shadows might get too
> dense unless you
> underexpose the shadows a little.
>
> For example, my tests show that for cyanotype, if
> you are looking at a
> scene with an SBR of 6, you need to develop the film
> for 16 minutes; but
> for Azo, the same scene needs a development time of
> about nine minutes.
> Let's say you make two negatives of this scene, one
> for printing in
> cyanotype and one for printing on Azo. Then you
> develop one for sixteen
> minutes and one for nine minutes. The shadows on
> the nine minute one are
> going to be a little less dense than the shadows on
> the sixteen minute
> one. Therefore you probably should have shot the
> sixteen minute one at
> say 400, shouldn't you? This is what I thought the
> tests were going to
> tell me, and they didn't.
>
> > .
> >>
> >>I'm beginning to think that developing by
> inspection is looking more
> >> and more attractive...
> >
> >
> > One sheet at a time? Thanks, but not for me. Well,
> maybe for a really
> > big negative when I have a lot of questions about
> how it was exposed!!
>
> Can't you tray develop more than one sheet at a
> time?
>
> --shannon
> > --
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST