Thanks. I'll try it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Shapiro" <sgsh...@redshift.com> To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Why is paper "contrasty"?
> To improve local contrast, extend range; you might try a half tsp of "Shap's > Bal. Bitz"per liter of working developer. It's now available through the > Photographers' Formulary. > > S > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Erickson" <erick...@hickorytech.net> > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:29 AM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Why is paper "contrasty"? > > > > I understand the behavior of VC paper, but my comments intended to deal > with > > the fact that the tonal range of brightly lit scenes exceeded the tonal > > range of any paper. "Ratcheting down" the exposure time in such situations > > would bring the highlights more into the tonal range of the paper, at the > > cost of shadow detail, advantage being that you at least don't lose both > > highlights and shadow. Thanks for your thoughts. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Guy Glorieux" <guy.glori...@sympatico.ca> > > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:05 AM > > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Why is paper "contrasty"? > > > > > > > William, > > > > > > If you go to the Ilford web site, on the B&W products page, > > > http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/bw.html > > > you will find hiding somewhere towards the center of the page an Acrobat > > > document called "CONTRAST CONTROL" that deals with your question. > > > > > > Basically, contrast on B&W variable-contrast paper is determined by the > > > amount of blue that hits the paper. Under the enlarger, low contrast is > > > achieved by reducing the amount of blue from the enlarger lamp with a > > > yellow filter. > > > > > > VC paper is calibrated for tungsten, which is yellow in color, compared > > > to daylight which is much more blue. So, it's only natural that paper > > > exposed to "blue" daylight will be more contrasty. > > > > > > To reduce contrast, use a yellow filter similar to the 00 that you would > > > use under the enlarger for minimum contrast: it works very well. It > > > will block some light, compared to not using a filter. But, if you use > > > Ilford paper, its speed is higher at lower contrast grades than at > > > higher contrast. As for me, I use ISO 4 when I shoot paper negatives > > > and it works well for me. > > > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > > > Guy > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "William Erickson" <erick...@hickorytech.net> > > > To: "ppinhole discussion" <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:45 PM > > > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Why is paper "contrasty"? > > > > > > > > > > I've thought this through but haven't completely verified it yet, but > > > I > > > > wanted to see what others reaction is. B&W paper used as a negative is > > > said > > > > to be "contrasty". What does this mean? B&W paper has a sensitivity > > > range of > > > > a little more than four stops for any given exposure. Burning and > > > dodging > > > > increase tonal range by shortening or lengthening the exposure. If you > > > meter > > > > a scene that has an eight stop tonal range and give the average > > > exposure for > > > > the scene using a paper negative, you risk having the highlights blown > > > out > > > > because they are more than two stops above average, and shadows go > > > black > > > > because they are more than two stops below average. If the scene has a > > > tonal > > > > range of only four or five stops, your negative won't be contrasty > > > because > > > > all the tones lie within the range of the paper. What, then, to do in > > > > sunshiney scenes, for instance, where the tonal range might be eight > > > or nine > > > > stops? If you place the highlight tones of the main object of your > > > > composition about two stops above average, you will get good tonality > > > in > > > > important spots, no blown out highlights, even though you may get lots > > > of > > > > black shadows. The implication is, much shorter exposure times (read > > > higher > > > > ISO) in bright scenes than in shadowiy scenes (effctively lower ISO), > > > using > > > > the same paper. My first tests suggest that a good ISO for Ilford > > > multigrade > > > > in bright sunlight might be as high as 15, while 5 works well in > > > shaded > > > > scenes. Any comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > > > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > > > > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > > > > unsubscribe or change your account at > > > > http://www.???????/discussion/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > > > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > > > unsubscribe or change your account at > > > http://www.???????/discussion/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > > unsubscribe or change your account at > > http://www.???????/discussion/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???????/discussion/ >
