Discussions: 61,006 | Messages: 835,402 | Members: 39,740 | Online: 305 | Chatroom: 2
User Name:  Password:
Support Doctors Without Borders in Haiti

 
APUG search    RSS MOBILE  FORUMS   SELECT LANGUAGE  
Customize Sidebar
Recent Classifieds
Go Back   APUG > APUG English Forums > Darkroom > B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry > Properly developed negatives


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-22-2008, 05:58 AM   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 3,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughitb View Post
That tip about holding your neg in front of a blank document
in your work processor in lieu of a light box ... genius!
That's nothing. I've a not very high overhead light which strikes
a reading level white papered surface. Wearing a visor will
reduce glare. No word processor needed. Dan
dancqu is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 11-22-2008, 07:27 AM   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Plymouth. UK.
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anscojohn View Post
For me, a properly exposed and developed neg is one that prints properly on a #2 paper for the minimum exposure in the enlarger which, through clear film,produces the maximum black thepaper and film developer can produce--not necessarilly one that looks a certain way on the light box.
As for the purple tint, try refixing and rewashing the negs. Oh, and in lieu of a fancy light box, just go to your word processing program, open a blank page, and use that as a standard for viewing your negs. Keep at it. You' soon get the hang of it.
I agree, it`s not how a negative looks, but how well it prints that matters.
Keith Tapscott. is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 11-22-2008, 12:32 PM   #23 (permalink)
 
MattKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Delta, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,118
Images: 5
Gary:

I've started to wonder whether we all might be misunderstanding what you are asking.

I think most of the answers in this thread are directed to evaluating how well exposed and developed your fim is, with a view to how well your shots can be printed.

I'm wondering whether your question is more to do with the overall appearance of the developed film - not how printable the negatives are, but instead whether they just look generally like properly developed negatives.

I have a feeling that you are expecting to see something like the results you would get with high contrast lithographers' film - stark, clearly visible images, rather than the subtle range of tones one sees in a normal continuous tone negative.

I don't know whether you have visited Jason Brunner's website (he is both a moderator and an advertiser here) but he has links there to a number of how to videos posted on YouTube. Here is a link to his site:

http://www.jasonbrunner.com/videos.html

I'd suggest watching all the videos there. In particular, I'd suggest viewing "Developing Roll Film Pt4". At about 6 minutes and again at about 7 1/2 minutes into that video, you will see Jason holding up some freshly developed 120 B & W film. Those negatives look well exposed and well developed to me. They are of course larger than 35mm film, and they have no sprocket holes, but I think that what you see there may help answer your concerns.

Hope this helps.

Matt
MattKing is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum

APUG.ORG Block Ads. (APUG Subscribers have the option of closing this block)