Re: old UV tubes less contrast?

My enlarged negative process starts with a 35mm Scala original. This
is printed on APHS and developed with HC-110 1:11. Scala's low
contrast nature works in my favour (as well as skipping the inter-
positive step). I'm very happy with the resulting enlarged
negatives, they seem to be in the right ballpark for VDB.

I have and am using the Stouffer 21-step tablets. I did some tests
with them the other day and am getting 16 steps with VDB (2 coats on
Stonehenge). So does that mean that my negs to be the same? 16 steps
or log 2.4?

Reading the enlarged negatives is frustrating. I've tried using the
step tablet to compare tones (through the white cards with holes) but
the high-lights in this particular image are small. This is where a
densitometer would come in handy.

The next step is to try making a negative with higher contrast and
see how it prints. It would be easier, though, to be able to know
when I had a negative with the correct densities without having to
print it first. Although, I guess that just comes with the territory.

Also, I am using palladium toner from B&S and toning before the fix.

The images posted are helpful. I quite like the shadow chaser.

thanks for your help Loris,

david

On 3-Mar-06, at 5:38 AM, Loris Medici wrote:

>
> If a negative prints well with Grade 0 paper, that doesn't necessarily
> mean it will print well with Vandyke. Because AFAIK, Vandyke's density
> range requirement is around log 1.9 (assuming 0.3 b+f, that makes an
> absolute dmax of log 2.2 on the negative!) and if I'm not wrong, you
> won't be able to print such a negative with good blacks even on
> Grade 0
> paper.
>
> Double coated and gold toned Vandykes are pretty good dmax-vise IME.
> Almost as good as (if not better - depending on paper brand) a
> silver-gelatine print on matte paper...
>
> What is your enlarged-negative-making method? Or, do you use in-camera
> negatives? See "Less Is More" article in Unblinking.eye if you enlarge
> your negatives in darkroom (and have access to ortochromatic film +
> not
> afraid of dealing with sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate), Mark
> Nelson's "Precision Digital Negatives" or Dan Burkholder's "Making
> Digital Negatives for Contact Printing" are the books you should read
> for making negatives digitally. You don't need a densitometer (having
> one is definitely a plus, but it's not a "must"), a scanner will do
> the
> job (I measure densities using a scanner - as described in Mark's
> book).
> A couple of Stouffer 21-step or Mark's 31-step tablets would be very
> helpful (having them is almost a "must" - makes your life a lot
> easier).
>
> Hope this helps,
> Loris.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david drake [mailto:daviddrakephoto@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: 03 Mart 2006 Cuma 04:26
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: old UV tubes less contrast?
>
> ...
> I think your probably correct in that the negative needs just a
> little
> more contrast. I don't have a densitometer and, therefore, judging a
> negative of good contrast for the process is difficult. From a
> previous
> posting I did learn that contact printing them on RC paper at grade 0
> should produce results approximate to VDB prints. However, this is
> probably a good starting point; as there are many other factors at
> play.
>
>
>
> I'm getting good whites with no fogging. I guess what I'm really after
> is more dmax while retaining good mid and higher tones (more
> contrast).
> It's difficult to know what this process is capable of when all
> one has
> for reference is web images. Some of Wynn Whites images on the
> Unblinking eye site have pretty incredible dmax.
>
>
> I was concerned about the age of the tubes in the lightbox only
> because
> it's in a co-operative darkroom I use and I have no idea how old they
> are. I also remember reading somewhere that the really old bulbs
> produce
> prints of less contrast, but perhaps this is not the case.
>
>
> I would like to find a way of creating fairly consistent density in my
> contact negatives. Perhaps a densitometer is the way to go.
> ...

david drake photography
daviddrakephoto@sympatico.ca
Received on Fri Mar 3 20:48:44 2006