What do you think about the method I decribed (for iron processes)? Do you
find it overkill? All I can say is that since I'm doing that way, my results
marginally improved + the exposure times are shorter...
Regards,
Loris.
Very interesting....
I do find that the number one error with a long tonal scale process is
choosing an exposure time that is too long. Salt and pt/pd are killers that
way, as well as the iron processes in general. It is almost easier when
doing ones that have solarization because you know you don't want that
losing density and you make sure to stop short of that...I just choose the
one that looks visually dmaxed enough and has not solarized--usually the
step right before solarization. It seems that your method with lab will
achieve the same results with the scanner, in effect, "seeing" the blackest
black with the scanner..but with whatever method, the print is the proof of
the process working or not.
I remember first going through the calibration process--I would find that
the eye could see the minutest differences in density! But exposing to the
point of not being able to see that difference is way too over. I think the
eye sees like maybe .01 difference or something like that. I imagine the
scanner is accurate, too, seeing 0-255.
Chris
Received on 07/13/06-08:45:30 AM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 08/31/06-12:23:48 PM Z CST