Here's a second to Jim's suggestion of reflection from show and water, or any whites. Using RC rapid paper as a negative, I usually cut back on the exposure by 1/2 to 1 stop when there is a significant white portion in the scene. Another possibility is old or exhausted chemistry. I've ruined a few RC rapid negatives by developing them in a group darkroom that did not have absolutely fresh developer. They were pretty dull and muddy, and were a lesson learned the hard way.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kosinski Family" <zin...@telenet.net> To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative mystery > Perhaps there was some damage to the camera or pinhole that let a lot more > light in. Most likely, it was due to the increase in light intensity when: > a) the atmosphere is cleaner (this increases as you get closer to the poles) > b) there is a lot of reflection from snow or water > I have to decrease exposures when I go from upstate NY just to the Maine > coast! > Test it first. > Jim K > > -----Original Message----- > From: HypoBob <hypo...@pacbell.net> > To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??????? <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Date: Saturday, September 23, 2000 12:43 PM > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative mystery > > > >Recently I took a pinhole camera to Alaska and exposed several negatives > > > >on a developer-incorporated, B&W, variable contrast RC paper. > > > >Upon my return, development of these paper negatives resulted in very > >dense, very flat negatives, as if the whole negative had been uniformly > >and heavily fogged. This was a complete surprise because exposure and > >development were exactly as I had done in the past with no problems. > > > >My first thought was that the latent image had degraded in the six days > >between exposure and development. However, a subsequent test reveals > >that while the latent image will change a little in six days, the change > > > >is not nearly enough to explain this problem. > > > >I also wondered if the airport carry-on x-ray machines had fogged the > >paper, but unexposed paper that went through the x-rays has since been > >used and shows no fogging at all. > > > >Another thought is that maybe the abundant UV at higher latitudes had > >simply overexposed the negatives. With no glass to attenuate UV, the > >UV-sensitive B&W paper negatives were exposed to the entire UV spectrum. > > > >Do any of you have any answers, suggestions, thoughts as to why a > >process that works fine here in sunny California would meet with such > >disaster on a trip to Alaska??? > > > >Bob > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > >Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > >unsubscribe or change your account at > >http://www.p at ???????/discussion/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???????/discussion/ >
