Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,546   Posts: 1,544,505   Online: 1172
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cahayapemburu View Post
    I was commenting on the data posted in this thread; maybe it's the old data based on outdated film? I won't ask why one would publish that kind of data; I'm sure Sandy has his reasons, but what I do wonder is why Sandy feels VC papers require such high density ranges? Scaling negatives for a paper grade between 2 and 3 is widely recommended and commonly practiced for maximum flexibility in printing, and a thin negative consistent with optimum sharpness and minimum grain. These negatives should have a density range around 1.0. Keeping in mind these values are logarithmic, 1.65 is much, much more dense than 1.0; what is gained by so much added density?
    I recommend this density for printing stained negatives on VC papers. It is based on the fact that if you want the highlight compression that is available with the stain, due to the blue and green sensitive parts of the emulsion, you should develop to a high contrast and then control contrast with the low number filters. If you develop to a lower CI and use the higher number VC filters to control contrast, you lose the effects of highlight compressions offered by staining developers. And highlight compression with the combination of staining developers and VC papers is highly unique.

    If your goal is to print both VC and graded silver papers with traditional non-stained negatives, then the approach you advocate, developing to a lower CI that would print about the same on a graded silver paper or a #2 VC paper, would be the best approach.

    It depends on what you want to achieve, and how you want to go about it.

    If you want to read more about the issue in more detail I recommend a few threads that appeared on the LF forum in January of 2007. I personally don't have any desire to discuss the issue any longer since I am not involved with printing VC papers. However, I still stand behind the opinions expressed in these threads.

    I will also add that some recommendations made by Mr. Gordon Hutchings for the density to shoot for with PMK at Zone VIII, about log 1.5 as I recall, appears to agree with my advice on the matter.

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=16066

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=22261


    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=22188

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=22215



    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 03-08-2008 at 07:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    47
    Developing to a higher than normal contrast in order to control highlights is not an approach I would advocate, whether one is using a staining developer, or not. When photographing a scene with a long illuminance range, presumably a circumstance in which one would benefit from highlight compression, it is counterproductive to develop to a higher than normal contrast. These overdeveloped negatives will suffer reduced sharpness and increased grain. It is a better approach, in my opinion, to control highlight density in film development, and particularly when photographing scenes of extended illuminance range, and print on a middle grade of paper, or the equivalent VC paper exposure scale. This allows maximum flexibility in printing, which is important for rollfilm shooters who develop all frames to a common contrast. LF negs are far more tolerant of overdevelopment, and a better format for utilizing the special stain/VC relationship in the extreme way Sandy advocates.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cahayapemburu View Post
    Developing to a higher than normal contrast in order to control highlights is not an approach I would advocate, whether one is using a staining developer, or not. When photographing a scene with a long illuminance range, presumably a circumstance in which one would benefit from highlight compression, it is counterproductive to develop to a higher than normal contrast. These overdeveloped negatives will suffer reduced sharpness and increased grain. It is a better approach, in my opinion, to control highlight density in film development, and particularly when photographing scenes of extended illuminance range, and print on a middle grade of paper, or the equivalent VC paper exposure scale. This allows maximum flexibility in printing, which is important for rollfilm shooters who develop all frames to a common contrast. LF negs are far more tolerant of overdevelopment, and a better format for utilizing the special stain/VC relationship in the extreme way Sandy advocates.
    First, there is no "normal" contrast. One develops according to the situation, negative and developer, and type of printing anticipated.

    Second, I have no idea how you work, but I expose and develop rollfilm (120 and 220 film) just as I expose and develop LF film. When the film leaves the camera I note what type of development is required for the exposures, either N+ or N-. If the roll contains scenes of different contrast I identify the most important exposures on the roll and develop for that specific contrast. I never develop all MF rolls to a common contrast, and consider such practice unacceptable if optimum results are desired for the most important images on the roll.

    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 03-08-2008 at 10:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    47
    I seem to have touched a nerve; sorry.

    First, yes Sandy, there is "normal" contrast. Normal contrast is that which will match a negative exposed under normal lighting conditions, to a normal grade of printing paper. It is normal because a 7-stop scene illuminance range is considered normal, and a printing paper exposure scale of 1.0 is considered normal, and a negative is an intermediary between the two, and as such, a normal contrast value is indicated, and identified by every manufacturer of film. End of lesson.

    Second, I didn't write "..develop all rolls to a common contrast" , but "...develop all frames to a common contrast", and I think the distinction should be obvious. Semantics and misreadings aside, what remains is that it is not uncommon to have exposures made in various lighting conditions on a single roll, and no single development will be optimum for all exposures, so the flexibility afforded by VC paper should be optimized by developing to a contrast suitable for printing negatives exposed under normal lighting conditions on paper with an exposure scale of around 1.0. Besides, in your own post you recommend developing to "a high contrast", but if there's no normal contrast, then how can there be high contrast? You don't seem to hold yourself to the same semantic standards you demand of others. If, as you've written, you don't want to discuss this subject, then don't, but if you want to criticize my terminology, at least read my posts, and then go back and read your own before taking a superior stance.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cahayapemburu View Post
    I seem to have touched a nerve; sorry.

    First, yes Sandy, there is "normal" contrast. Normal contrast is that which will match a negative exposed under normal lighting conditions, to a normal grade of printing paper. It is normal because a 7-stop scene illuminance range is considered normal, and a printing paper exposure scale of 1.0 is considered normal, and a negative is an intermediary between the two, and as such, a normal contrast value is indicated, and identified by every manufacturer of film. End of lesson.

    Second, I didn't write "..develop all rolls to a common contrast" , but "...develop all frames to a common contrast", and I think the distinction should be obvious. Semantics and misreadings aside, what remains is that it is not uncommon to have exposures made in various lighting conditions on a single roll, and no single development will be optimum for all exposures, so the flexibility afforded by VC paper should be optimized by developing to a contrast suitable for printing negatives exposed under normal lighting conditions on paper with an exposure scale of around 1.0. Besides, in your own post you recommend developing to "a high contrast", but if there's no normal contrast, then how can there be high contrast? You don't seem to hold yourself to the same semantic standards you demand of others. If, as you've written, you don't want to discuss this subject, then don't, but if you want to criticize my terminology, at least read my posts, and then go back and read your own before taking a superior stance.
    Let me ask you this straight out. Are you Jay DeFehr?

    Or, are you acting in any way on behalf of Jay DeFehr?

    You sure sound a lot like him to me.

    If not, I simply told you how I exposed roll film. I really don't care how you do it. Just don't involve me any more in your discussions. I don't appreciate your attitude and wont' respond any more to your messages about photography.


    Sandy King
    Last edited by sanking; 03-08-2008 at 11:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    47
    Jay sure seems to have gotten under your skin, Sandy. I'm not Jay; he had a lot more patience for you than I do, and I didn't "involve" you in anything. You have issues, Sandy; deep, deep issues.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cahayapemburu View Post
    Jay sure seems to have gotten under your skin, Sandy. I'm not Jay; he had a lot more patience for you than I do, and I didn't "involve" you in anything. You have issues, Sandy; deep, deep issues.
    Hi, cahayapemburu. So *if* you are not Jay DeFehr, perhaps you might provide a bit of information as to who you are, i.e. where you live, your local address, what you do for a living, etc? Information that the good folks could use to contact you.

    Most people on APUG are pretty willing to share this information. That information is certainly out there for most of the APUG folks. Course, there are some slime balls from the past who have a record of using multiple identities to attack others, and you never know when those slugs might reappear. I hope you are not such a slug. But my gut and the singing frogs say otherwise.

    Sandy King
    Last edited by sanking; 03-08-2008 at 11:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    47
    The "good folks" can contact me by pm. There are some emotionally unstable sociopaths here who take forum postings way too seriously for me to divulge a lot of personal information. You're still bashing a guy who hasn't posted in years, and you expect me to post my home address? You've lost the plot, man. I tell you what I will do; I'll add you to my list of cyberstalkers and my apug ignore list. Bye now, psycho, and seek professional help with your Jay Defehr obsession, for both your sakes.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by ;598866
    The "good folks" can contact me by pm. There are some emotionally unstable sociopaths here who take forum postings way too seriously for me to divulge a lot of personal information. You're still bashing a guy who hasn't posted in years, and you expect me to post my home address? You've lost the plot, man. I tell you what I will do; I'll add you to my list of cyberstalkers and my apug ignore list. Bye now, psycho, and seek professional help with your Jay Defehr obsession, for both your sakes.

    Check the internet, cahayapemburu. You will not find a single comment by me about Jay DeFehr since January of 2007, when he announced that he was giving up photography because of a personal tragedy. I could have cared less. In this exchange I did not bash DeFehr at all. I simply asked if you were him, with the comment that you sounded a lot like him. How does that constitute bashing? Guess your reading comprehension skills are not so good?

    I am of course reporting this post, because you sound like a very sick person who may not know who he is.

    Sandy King
    Last edited by sanking; 03-09-2008 at 12:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    47
    It's just too funny that you had to edit your last post for punctuation and grammar; priceless!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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