Re: Dichromate dilution and speed

Judy Seigel wrote:
>

>
> AND ONE OTHER VERY IMPORTANT THING (NOTE THAT I'M SHOUTING NOW !!) DIGITAL
> NEGATIVES PRINT SO DIFFERENTLY FROM CONTINUOUS TONE, I'M NOT AT ALL AT ALL
> AT ALL SURE THAT SAM'S FINDINGS APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD. (Although
> as I recall Katharine's negs are digital, but maybe a different digital.)
>
> THE FACT THAT EXPOSURE IS EITHER "ON" OR "OFF" AND NO INBETWEEN COULD
> ACCOUNT FOR RELATIVELY LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN EFFECT OF DICHROMATE
> CONCENTRATION. BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS MOSTLY HIGHLIGHTS. DIGINEGS HAVE AS
> IT WERE NO HIGHLIGHTS... ONLY FULL DENSITY DOTS.

I would find this argument fairly convincing, except for the fact that I
don't notice that big a difference between digital negatives and
continuous tone in the way they print. The negative I used for the test
prints I showed today was a continuous tone negative, 4x5 sheet film
exposed in camera. Most of my negatives are digital negatives of several
sorts. Like I said, I really don't notice any big difference in the
process required to get a good print out of the different kinds of
negatives.

It seems unlikely to me that digital negatives would change the physics
and chemistry of the dichromate ion, but I won't say it's not possible.
If I feel like it tomorrow I'll run the test again with digital
negatives, since I've still got some of that liquid pigment.

But.... isn't a continuous tone negative just dots (grains) of a silver
material that are either there or not there?
kt
Received on Mon Dec 1 02:30:27 2003