Thanks to all (was - RE: My first attempt - digital negatives.)

Hi again to everyone.

I just wanted to say thanks for all of the good advice. I will be lowering
the enlarger head and reducing the magenta to 0 (for a start.)

I should just clarify, however, a couple of points from my email. First,
the darkroom belongs to the college so I cannot make any changes in bulb, or
anything else, for that matter. As a student, I get what I get. Second,
the dodging and burning I mentioned in my PS was related to darkroom work in
general, not to the digital negative which had corrections made in Photoshop
CS. That dodging and burning was the subject of last Wednesday's lesson in
the basic darkroom course. Finally, the darkroom instructor suggested that
I add the magenta filter (though he has no experience with digital
negatives.)

The digital negative I was working on had curves applied for contrast and
was printed using the printer settings suggested by Burkholder in his Inkjet
Negative Companion.

Again, I appreciate all of the suggestions which will become part of my
workflow when I get my own darkroom.

Ehud

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Koch-Schulte [mailto:mkochsch@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:03 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: My first attempt - digital negatives.

It might depend if Ehud is using a "colourized" negative or just just red
and yellow? Agreed the magenta is just adding density.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Smigiel" <jsmigiel@kvcc.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: My first attempt - digital negatives.

> I'm not sure you need that 70 magenta in the colorhead. If the negative
> contrast is adjusted in Photoshop correctly using curves before output,
> you shouldn't need to filter for the paper contrast. After all, that's
> what the curves are used for in the digital negative workflow. Without
> filtration in the enlarger I suspect you will gain at least one stop of
> exposure and cut your printing times accordingly to a more managable
> level. Bringing the enlarger lamphouse down so the projected area of
> illumination just covers the contact print frame may also give you a
> significant decrease in exposure time.
>
> Joe
>
> >>> mkochsch@shaw.ca 02/11/05 10:14 AM >>>
> Ehud Yaniv wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I have been trying to make digital negatives for silver printing,
> > while I am learning photography and until I can move to alt-processes.
> >
> > I have been using Pictorico High Gloss White and the Dan Burkholder
> > Inkjet Companion template with an Epson 1280 printer and stock inks.
> > So far I have made 4 negatives and yesterday I got to try to print
> > one during my basic darkroom class.
> >
> > I have not yet made a final print due to the end of class but I was
> > up to 5 minutes and 20 seconds with 70 magenta in the colour head of
> > the enlarger at f4 and 50 mm lens. The enlarger height was set to 70
> > and the light was focussed through an empty 35 mm film holder.
> >
> > My question, is this length of time unusual? I think I still need to
> > add about 20 % more time to get some separation between the 0 and 5 %
> > on the included step wedge.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be gratefully accepted as I have limited
> > darkroom time as I still need to do assignments to complete the
> > course.
> >
> > Ehud
> >
> > PS: Yesterday I learned to dodge and burn for the first time. It was
> > actually quite wonderful to make some fine changes to a photograph.
> > That is to say, to have some - limited, control. I still felt like I
> > was all thumbs.
> >
> > __________
> > Ehud Yaniv
> > Still Light Photography
> > www.still-light.com
>
>
> Ehud, your print times will go down but will you see any difference in
> quality by switching to OHP? Probably not, since base + fog is what is
> changing. If printing faster is absolutely neccessary then go ahead and
> switch. If you can open up a stop or two try that, or switch to a higher
> watt bulb. e.g. go to a 150 or 225 watt enlarger bulb.
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 13 16:45:39 2005