Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,953   Posts: 1,558,008   Online: 1114
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    739
    I find a difference between giving 10x2 second exposures and giving a single 20 second exposure with my Omega D2V enlarger fitted with a 75 watt Photocresenta bulb.

    The intermittent exposure sequence includes 40 moments when the bulb is dim and red and non-actinic and 20 intervals when it is bright and actinic. But the difference is surprisingly (!) small. The resultant gelatin-silver photographs from either method can be eye-matched by a small change in room lighting. In practice the time adjustment I give to compensate for final dry-down (typically 8%) swallows the small intermittency effect.
    Last edited by Maris; 11-21-2013 at 04:37 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  2. #12
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by fralexis View Post
    I had been taught long ago that final exposure should follow the same series of short exposures as the test strips...ie, for a total exposure of 20 seconds, expose in 5 second increments rather than the full 20 seconds. It seems to me that perhaps the full 20 seconds would be preferable to give time for dodging and burning. What do you do? Thanks.

    Alexis
    For me, it depends mostly on your tools and individual working style, but for the record I've never experienced any qualitative difference employing either style of printing. That may be because my exposures are always quite lengthy, any small differences in the amount of light delivered to the paper being ultimately negligible. Where it can make a difference is in the ability to keep track of dodges (particularly) and burns incrementally (i.e., 10 x 6 secs (total exposure) – 2 x 6 secs (dodge first area) – 1 x 6 secs (dodge second area) + 15 x 6 secs burn, and so on). Combined with a footswitch for the enlarger, one never needs to interrupt the process, or take eyes off the print during exposure.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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