Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,752   Posts: 1,515,905   Online: 1091
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,142
    Images
    2
    I agree with the holding off on bleaching and as mentioned at 23% more development you should have negatives that can be used. I think that if the highlights are so blocked it was more of an exposure issue. Leaves that are often rather shiny are highly reflective and although you saw them as being green they can easily come out over exposed. Also are you sure you had the correct and/or ISO set on the meter for both rolls?

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    197
    they were shot at ISO 100, so the box speed of both films. I only have like 10 sheets of vc paper left until Saturday when I get some more, the rest is graded, so I will make a test print tonight at grades 00 and 0 to see what happens.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,788
    i have some 4x5 film that is so dense you can't see through it.
    i just contact print the heck out of it, which means regular rc paper,
    and a 300watt bulb exposed for anywhere between 8 seconds and 2mins depending on the film
    (tmx has a uv layer that adds 10x the time ) ...
    if you have 35mm film this might be a bit difficult but it might be fun to try.
    35mm tiny prints can look really nice in a 8x10 frame

    ( a conversation piece at least ! )
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  4. #14
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    32
    I have some negatives on Delta 3200 that I thought was Plus-X when it was in the camera. It's almost too dense to see the image detail, but printed down, they look fabulous.

    Lots of photographers enjoy using extremely meaty negatives in the dark room.

    I personally find "normally" exposed and developed too thin for my printing technique and aesthetic preferences. I overexpose -drastically- when I have the light to do so.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,788
    SNIP
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    .......pure hypo crystals from the swimming pool store
    i wish i could find a swimming pool store near me that sold pure hypo,
    no one sells it near me at all, well, i lie , one place about 45mins away
    and i have to buy 100lbs of it ...
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  6. #16
    Andrew O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada
    Posts
    586
    The negs looked very dense then when I went to print them the whites on the print were completely white (I.e no veins in the leaves, foliage completely white with no detail, the highlights completely blown.
    Are you exposing for the high lights when making the print? Are you using a VC paper? Have you ever tried flashing the paper?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    197
    I haven't tried flashing the paper, I did print at grade 0 and 1 and that resulted in a few (the most crucial shots) being reasonably printed. I too like reasonably dense negatives but these were too dense, doesn't flashing paper make it hypersensitive?

    Jacob

  8. #18
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,885
    Images
    6
    I don't think so. It makes some highlights that don't have texture on the print have texture. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,322
    Images
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    I don't think so. It makes some highlights that don't have texture on the print have texture. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    You are correct.
    This is also the sort of negative that doing split grade printing can help with. In a nutshell, you make an exposure at grade 00 to get the highlights then a second exposure at grade 5 to bring the blacks to where you'd like them to be.

  10. #20
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,154
    Images
    288
    I apologize if this has been addressed already, but here goes:

    1. If your negative is simply overdeveloped, then your contrast will be too high. If you bleach such a negative, the very first thing that will be bleached out are your shadows. They will basically just disappear, while your highlights remain still pretty dense. Now you will have a negative that is still of very high contrast, but with less shadow detail than you had before.

    2. If your negative is overexposed, on the other hand, and the entire tone scale of the recorded scene is slid up the tone curve of your negative, then you can bleach with good results to reduce the density of the negative in general, without losing shadow detail; shadows will just slide back down the curve to where they normally live.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin