PDA

View Full Version : Paper emulsion gamma values, please?



Pages : 1 [2]

Photo Engineer
01-24-2011, 12:22 PM
Ralph;

Very nice. My feeling was, when I looked at the numbers, that you were pretty far down on the toe. Is that the case here?

PE

RalphLambrecht
01-24-2011, 02:50 PM
Ralph;

Very nice. My feeling was, when I looked at the numbers, that you were pretty far down on the toe. Is that the case here?

PE

Usually one gets stoned in these forums for proposing anything but a log density of 0.1 for Zone I. Nevertheless, I can live with it as long as I place the effective film speed at Zone I.5 or a log density of 0.17. Is that what you meant?

Photo Engineer
01-24-2011, 02:59 PM
Yes. That is what I mean. I still think that if you are on the toe too far, the shadows will be lacking detail or contrast. But, to each his own.

Thanks Ralph.

PE

RalphLambrecht
01-24-2011, 03:48 PM
... I still think that if you are on the toe too far, the shadows will be lacking detail or contrast. ...

I could not agree more. This is about the most important recipe for print quality! I wish more people would realize this. Please consider my chart as the absolute minimum negative densities required.

On the other hand, I can only pick two points on the characteristic curve. Whatever happens in between is a material-dependant response to light and development.

Photo Engineer
01-24-2011, 03:50 PM
IMHO too many people underexpose! And, they are not fully aware of it either.

PE

RalphLambrecht
01-24-2011, 03:58 PM
IMHO too many people underexpose! And, they are not fully aware of it either.

PE

I remember a Kodak representative showing me a panel of prints from -2 to +10 stop exposures. The '-' prints where all terrible. The '+' prints got better with exposure. Amazing!

Richard Zakia showed a nice example of it in one of his books. I spoke to him recently, and unfortunately, he has lost the originals, but fully approved of the examples I published in WBM2 (attached).

Some things are really simple, too simple, in fact, to be appreciated.

Photo Engineer
01-24-2011, 04:01 PM
Very nice Ralph.

A while back I posted a series of Portra VC exposures at ISO 25, 50, 100, 160, 200, and 400. Same thing.

PE

dwross
01-24-2011, 04:17 PM
Hi Denise.

Happy (if belated) New Year!

Perhaps its crusty synapses but I really have read his series...
and, over the years, I have even owned two complete sets!!
but they and other goodies were stolen from me,
so now... my Adams Engine just limps along on fumes.



Ray,

So sorry to hear about losing your books. Ouch! Now I hope even more that you find yourself a set of Adams', and any of the other books lost that you considered important. Photographers cannot live on fumes alone!

d

Ray Rogers
01-25-2011, 03:02 AM
Ralph, Denise

Thanks.

Denise,
They are very well written and a pleasure to read and learn from,
but I doubt I will replace them anytime soon.


----------------------------------------------
"All That Glitters Is Not, All That Glitters"
patti smith

Julia
01-25-2011, 09:22 PM
Ray

Try the attached for starters, but it is only a rough guide for a normal subject brightness range without expansion or contraction development.

Ralph,

I'm having shadows in Zone I 1/2 of a stop more dense compared to your table, midtone gets higher about 1/3 of a stop. I think that is more or less along your line of recommendations? Highlights, I'm not sure, characteristic curve I'm getting ends at higher densities.

RalphLambrecht
01-26-2011, 12:57 PM
Julia

It sounds like you whole curve is a bit higher than mine. Keep in mind, my film densities are relative not absolute densities.

Julia
01-26-2011, 02:46 PM
Ralph,

I measured subtracting the fog density, that's relative, right?

Overall thanks to the advice I got in this thread, and books recommended my printing is getting much faster. I'm figuring out dodging and burning now (using masks) based on index print densities vs. densities I want.

Thank you all, Gentlemen.

RalphLambrecht
01-26-2011, 03:22 PM
Ralph,

I measured subtracting the fog density, that's relative, right? ...

Yes, it is.