Got it! Thanks. JT
-- Judy Rowe Taylor Mukilteo, WA Art is a voice of the heart, a song of the soul. www.enduringibis.com jude.taylor@comcast.net or judyrowetaylor@enduringibis.com
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:50:06 +0000
From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
Subject: Re: Pictorico Bummer
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_mnO//iAhth+Pe7MfYXThxA)"
--Boundary_(ID_mnO//iAhth+Pe7MfYXThxA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Judy,
Each density difference of log 0.10 is about 1/3rd of a stop, so a
difference of log .20 is 2/3rd of a stop.
Exposure is based on shadow density. So, assume that you had one
negative (Negative A) with a shadow density ready of log .10, and
you know the exposure that makes a perfect print. Now, if you have
another negative (Negative B) with a shadow density value of log
.30, you know that it will need 2/3rd of a stop more exposure.
Assume that the correct exposure for Negative A was 60 seconds.
Negative B will need 2/3 of a stop more exposure, or 100 seconds. A
1/3 stop increase would be 20 seconds, a 2/3 stop increase 40
seconds, and a full stop increae would be 60 seconds.
This applies to all negatives, in-camera or digital negatives.
Unfortunately, you need a UV densitometer to make this type of
reading when working with UV processes. But you can get around it by
test printing step wedges.
Best,
Sandy
>So....how is that done, Sandy? Applying a +2/3 log density
>difference, that is. I know how to try to pry one sheet into two as
>I just recently purchased my first box of Pictorico and my first
>though was, "Gee, this is thick stuff." Or are you talking about
>something other than a digineg?
>
>Thanks!
>Judy
>
>--
>Judy Rowe Taylor
>Mukilteo, WA
>Art is a voice of the heart, a song of the soul.
>www.enduringibis.com
>jude.taylor@comcast.net or judyrowetaylor@enduringibis.com
>
>
>
>
>
>Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:07:17 +0000
>From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
>Subject: Re: Pictorico Bummer
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="Boundary_(ID_ExK/6yY5PLs6w8hUNy8JxA)"
>
>2 sheets stuck together? Mark, Mark!! But you know, I tried to pry
>the piece apart because my first thought when I pulled the sheet
>from the package was that it had to be two pieces stuck together.
>But alas, not.
>
>Nope, one really thick sheet, and the other 14 sheets in the package
>are just as thick.
>
>The good news is that I just applied the log correction of +2/3 more
>stop indicated by the UV density difference of 0.20 and the print
>was perfect. Long exposure, but at least the overall density range
>is not different so one can still base exposures on a UV shadow
>density reading.
>
>Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>>Content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
>>Content-language: en
>>
>>Sandy,
>>
>>Boy that is a bummer-are you sure you don't have 2 sheets stuck together?
>>
>>I bought a bunch of it quite some time ago in both 8.5 x11 and 13 x
>>19 , so I am still going through that stock.
>>
>>Mark Nelson
>><http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/>Precision Digital Negatives
>>
>>In a message dated 8/19/05 8:49:49 PM, sanking@clemson.edu writes:
>>
>>>I just opened a new box of 13X19" Pictorico and made a negative this
>>>evening. I noticed that the stock was quite a bit thicker than the
>>>previous stock of 13X19" material that I had been using so I decoded
>>>to take a reading of the UV base with my densitometer. It measures a
>>>full log .20 more than the old stock, .16 versus .37.
>>>
>>>What a pain. I have been basing my printing on first making a smaller
>>>negative on 8.5X11" material and then honing in exposure before
>>>making a larger one on 13X19", and getting perfect exposures. That is
>>>now no longer possible due to the change of stock.
>>>
>>>Anyone know if the the thickness of the 8.5X11" is still the same?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sandy
--Boundary_(ID_mnO//iAhth+Pe7MfYXThxA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Pictorico Bummer</title></head><body>
<div>Judy,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Each density difference of log 0.10 is about 1/3rd of a stop, so
a difference of log .20 is 2/3rd of a stop.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Exposure is based on shadow density. So, assume that you had one
negative (Negative A) with a shadow density ready of log .10,
and you know the exposure that makes a perfect print. Now, if you have
another negative (Negative B) with a shadow density value of log
.30, you know that it will need 2/3rd of a stop more exposure.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Assume that the correct exposure for Negative A was 60 seconds.
Negative B will need 2/3 of a stop more exposure, or 100 seconds. A
1/3 stop increase would be 20 seconds, a 2/3 stop increase 40 seconds,
and a full stop increae would be 60 seconds.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This applies to all negatives, in-camera or digital negatives.
Unfortunately, you need a UV densitometer to make this type of reading
when working with UV processes. But you can get around it by test
printing step wedges.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Sandy</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>So....how is that done, Sandy?
Applying a +2/3 log density difference, that is. I know how to try to
pry one sheet into two as I just recently purchased my first box of
Pictorico and my first though was, "Gee, this is thick
stuff." Or are you talking about something other than a
digineg?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
Judy <br>
<br>
--<br>
Judy Rowe Taylor<br>
Mukilteo, WA<br>
Art is a voice of the heart, a song of the soul.<br>
www.enduringibis.com<br>
jude.taylor@comcast.net or judyrowetaylor@enduringibis.com<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:07:17 +0000<br>
From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu><br>
Subject: Re: Pictorico Bummer<br>
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca<br>
MIME-version: 1.0<br>
Content-type: multipart/alternative;<br>
boundary="Boundary_(ID_ExK/6yY5PLs6w8hUNy8JxA)"<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>2 sheets stuck together? Mark, Mark!! But
you know, I tried to pry the piece apart because my first thought when
I pulled the sheet from the package was that it had to be two pieces
stuck together. But alas, not.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Nope, one really thick sheet, and the
other 14 sheets in the package are just as thick.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The good news is that I just applied the
log correction of +2/3 more stop indicated by the UV density
difference of 0.20 and the print was perfect. Long exposure, but at
least the overall density range is not different so one can still base
exposures on a UV shadow density reading.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Sandy</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Content-type: text/html;
charset=UTF-8<br>
Content-language: en<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000">Sandy,<br>
<br>
Boy that is a bummer-are you sure you don't have 2 sheets stuck
together?<br>
<br>
I bought a bunch of it quite some time ago in both 8.5 x11 and 13 x 19
, so I am still going through that stock.<br>
<br>
Mark Nelson<br>
</font><a href="http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/"><font
face="Geneva" size="-1" color="#0000FF">Precision Digital
Negatives</font></a><font face="Geneva" size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
<br>
In a message dated 8/19/05 8:49:49 PM, sanking@clemson.edu
writes:</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000">I just opened a new box of 13X19" Pictorico and
made a negative this<br>
evening. I noticed that the stock was quite a bit thicker than the<br>
previous stock of 13X19" material that I had been using so I
decoded<br>
to take a reading of the UV base with my densitometer. It measures
a<br>
full log .20 more than the old stock, .16 versus .37.<br>
<br>
What a pain. I have been basing my printing on first making a
smaller<br>
negative on 8.5X11" material and then honing in exposure
before<br>
making a larger one on 13X19", and getting perfect exposures.
That is<br>
now no longer possible due to the change of stock.<br>
<br>
Anyone know if the the thickness of the 8.5X11" is still the
same?<br>
<br>
<br>
Sandy</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_mnO//iAhth+Pe7MfYXThxA)--
Received on Sun Aug 21 09:43:11 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/01/05-09:17:20 AM Z CST