Re: old UV tubes less contrast?

Don,
My developing time for the APHS is actually 8.5 minutes in HC-110
(1:11). This is with constant very subtle agitation at 20 degrees
Celsius. I also give a 1 minute water bath.

I revisited the original scala slide image today and had somewhat of
a realization. The tones of the original slide lie mostly in the
mid- tones. I realized what I really would like in the final print is
to 'stretch out' in the mid-tones and create more contrast. This is
probably why my developing times are 'somewhat' longer than you
mention Don. Of course doing this the sky gets blasted out (which I
kinda like anyway).

I've posted the latest test print at: http://web.mac.com/
daviddrakephoto/iWeb/Site/VDB%20testprint.html
and also the original slide: http://web.mac.com/daviddrakephoto/
iWeb/Site/original%20scala.html

(these show online with just slightly more contrast than the originals)

I'm not sure on the direction I should take.I don't really want to
increase time much more and was considering increasing strength
(1:10), as I've read somewhere that adjusting the strength of the
developer was the best way of effecting contrast? I think I'm also
going to increase my exposure slightly to increase separation in the
shadows.

thanks all for your help,
david

On 3-Mar-06, at 10:29 PM, Don Bryant wrote:

> David,
>
>>
> 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?
>>
>
> Sounds like your enlarged negatives are right in the ball park. At
> this
> point I would make some small enlargements using the same image of
> actual
> photographs and print them after varying your development time by
> about 15%
> over and under the developing time you are processing with now.
> Also include
> a negative processed at your normal time for comparison.
>
> This should give you an idea of how close you are coming to correct
> processing time. Just make sure your coating and exposure technique is
> consistent which it sounds like it is.
>
> You didn't say what your development time is with the 1:11 dilution of
> HC-110 but I would guess that it has to be pretty short based on my
> experience with the developer. I wouldn't stray much under 4:30.
> Also rotary
> drum processing will almost always produce more consistent
> negatives than
> tray processing.
>
> Using a densitometer does make producing enlarged negatives easier
> especially when used with plotting software such as Phil Davis'
> WinPlotter
> program, but you can achieve good results with out either, it just
> takes
> longer and consumes less testing materials.
>
>>
> 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.
>>
>
> If you have a color analyzer such as the Beseler PM2L, you can use
> that as a
> densitometer. They can be found quite cheaply on eBay. They are
> accurate
> enough for dup work although you will need to bias the null setting
> to read
> densities above log 2.0.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Don Bryant
>
> P.S. I pray that my message gets posted, some do, some don't.
>
>

david drake photography
daviddrakephoto@sympatico.ca
Received on Sun Mar 5 18:33:03 2006