Hi Mike
Mike wrote:
>Well, okay, but reemmber you _have_ to get the test negs developed to the
>same CI, and you _have_ to use a densitometer to confirm this--the results
>are meaningless if you just do it by eye and don't match contrast.
I have no doubt that the difference will not have to be me
Shel wrote:
> A densitometer is fine, but there are other characteristics that
> re quite important as well, which a densitometer cannot
> measure. Edge effects, tonal gradation, accutance and sharpness
> come to mind.
True. But if you are testing a water-bath regimen against a non-water-bat
tom wrote:
> I also plan to try XTOL...Aaron has been spazzing about Studional, so I
> may try that too, since it seems to be pretty versatile.
*sniff* I just LIKE it, okay? *sniff*
:)
I like Microphen, too.
-Aaron
chemical spaz
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To uns
A densitometer is fine, but there are other characteristics that
re quite important as well, which a densitometer cannot
measure. Edge effects, tonal gradation, accutance and sharpness
come to mind.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> Jens wrote:
>
> > Hi Sh
tom wrote:
> Anyway, that experience got me looking at Delta again. If I can figure
> out how to control the highlights (PMK?) I may just switch.
Are your highlights blocking up? I'd suggest shortening the processing
time (or if you're labbing it, shoot the film a little higher, at maybe
160
Don't worry Shel, Wide ties come back every decade or
so and bell-bottoms tried to make a comeback just
recently, (where's that flamethrower when I need it)?
But I doubt we'll ever see Super-XX again.
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> > This really went ou
Thanks for the info Mike.
tv
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> tv wrote:
>
> > Oh great, another variable, thanks...
>
> There are only three variables that are significant, assuming you're not
> going to play with (vary) your enlarger light source. These are encoded in
> the term "FDP," which stands
Mike Johnston wrote:
> This really went out with bell-bottoms,
> wide ties, and Super-XX.
Darn! There goes my spring wardrobe ;-(
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directio
Ken Archer wrote:
> This technique has been around
>at least 40 years that I know about.
What worked 40 years ago may not work as well on contemporary
films, or have any benefit when compared to some of the current
developers and other developing techniques.
> Let me give you a little theo
Ken wrote:
> This technique has been around at least 40 years that I know about...This
technique is very
> effective at avoiding blocked highlights while opening up the shadows.
Ken,
Oh, no it isn't. It might have been 40 years ago with the emulsions that
were common back then but not with toda
This technique has been around at least 40 years that I know about. Let me
give you a little theory behind it. Highlight areas require much more
developer than the shadow areas. When you first put the film in the developer,
it soaks up an equal amount throughout the emulsion. If you took the f
Hi Mike
It is true, that many great photographs origin in the concept of controling
the whole process: Exposure, film, development, printing.
Where can we find this program by Phil Davis?
Jens
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and fol
tv wrote:
> Oh great, another variable, thanks...
There are only three variables that are significant, assuming you're not
going to play with (vary) your enlarger light source. These are encoded in
the term "FDP," which stands for Film, film Developer, and Paper.
Most anecdotal "trials" (calle
Hi Shel
I forgot to mention, that I think that by just reducing dev. time, as
suggested, you will just get a weaker negative, not more "colour" in the
shadows (on the contrary).
The cat pictures are indeed very difficut, as for most back lit scenes, the
contast in the main subject tends to be rath
orks better.
Best Regards
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]På; vegne af Shel Belinkoff
Sendt: 10. februar 2001 13:44
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: OT: Ilford film choice
Jens Bladt wrote:
> I can't help wondering if your problem lies in develo
Jens Bladt wrote:
> I can't help wondering if your problem lies in developing, rather than
> printing. Your cat pictures have very high contast. One way of dealing with
> this is to stop development halfway through. Exchange the developer with
> plain water for a few minutes. Then exchange the wa
Emne: Re: OT: Ilford film choice
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> Maybe I can learn something from your problems. At what EI do
> you expose Delta 100, and under what lighting conditions? What
> developer have you used? Time/temp/agitation?
I shot these back before I had a darkroom or
tv wrote:
> True, it just seems Delta 100 is more finicky in that regard. The few
> negs I have have highlights that are just tough to print.
> More experimentation is needed.
Or a different paper. Highlight contrast is built into the printing paper
and doesn't usually change much with filter
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> Maybe I can learn something from your problems. At what EI do
> you expose Delta 100, and under what lighting conditions? What
> developer have you used? Time/temp/agitation?
I shot these back before I had a darkroom or was doing my own
processing, so these are all (3
tom wrote:
> True, it just seems Delta 100 is
> more finicky in that regard. The few
> negs I have have highlights that are
> just tough to print.
Maybe I can learn something from your problems. At what EI do
you expose Delta 100, and under what lighting conditions? What
developer have you u
Hi Tom
Sorry - I should have said: .over exposure reduces contrast.
Jens
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Jens Bladt wrote:
>
> Hi Tom
> About the highlights. The thumb rule (that you probably already know) is,
> that the higlights are controled by developing the film. The shadows by the
> exposure.
True, it just seems Delta 100 is more finicky in that regard. The few
negs I have have highlights th
tom wrote:
> Anyway, that experience got me
> looking at Delta again. If I can
> figure out how to control the
> highlights (PMK?) I may just switch.
At Mark's suggestion, I picked up a few roll of Delta 100, and
am quite anxious to see the results. Unfortunately, it's not
been Delta weather
Jens Bladt wrote:
>
> HI Terence
> B.S!!!
> The Delta films are very sharp, very
> fine grain, great tones. I only use
> something else if I have to.
Hi Jens ...
While that may be your experience, others, using different
chemicals, different techniques, and who have different water,
may find t
Yup - I'd agree on developer as well.
I tend to use with Agfa Rodinal Special, Ilford IlfoSol, or Perceptol
(bugger to make, but worth it).
I have used t-max developer once or twice, and was very surprised at the
awfulness of the results, so i've tended to stay away.
That said, my favourite
Mark Dalal wrote:
>
> Hi Terence,
>
> For the past few weeks, I've been using Delta 100 in PMK Pyro and the
> combination has been truly excellent. Contrast control is excellent and it's
> pretty hard to screw up a neg. The prints have been tremendously sharp and
> smooth. I'm getting ready to s
T. wrote:
>I traditionally use FP4 and HP5, but I've been wondering about Delta 100
and 400. I've shot a few rolls of >Delta 400, but it seems to lack some of
the "black and Whiteishness" of the older emulsions, as in not quite >as
contrasty etc.
>Does anyone have experience of these emulsions,
Developer makes a big difference in film choice. What developer are you
(or the lab that you're going to) using? I've been having great results
of late with Delta 100 and Delta 3200 in Agfa Studional. My one roll of
Delta 400 I was pushing it to 800 and I was kind of underwhelmed by my
results,
Hi.
I've been playing around now for a few weeks with Ilford Film again after a
brief stint using Agfa B&W.
I traditionally use FP4 and HP5, but I've been wondering about Delta 100
and 400. I've shot a few rolls of Delta 400, but it seems to lack some of
the "black and Whiteishness" of the
29 matches
Mail list logo
