Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,735   Posts: 1,515,461   Online: 1128
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,775
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    I like it, but here is a slight modification:

    Print a test of the blocked highlights
    and a test for the easy highlights.
    Then print the easy ones
    and burn the blocked highlights.
    much better ralph

    i like that too

    you don't want my recipe for scrambled eggs ..
    i do that backwards too

    john
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  2. #22
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,826
    Or, go back to using Diafine and gain a stop of shadow speed back and have easily printable negatives. I think my D23 experiment is about over. At least when I pull the negs off the roll after using Diafine they look like healthy negatives.
    f/22 and be there.

  3. #23
    Jon Shiu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Elk, California
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    2,448
    Images
    33
    You can also try flashing your paper to tone down your highlights and make them easier to burn in. One way to do is to place a piece translucent acrylic (ie plexi) under the lens and expose for a few seconds (leaving the neg in the enlarger). Then remove plastic an print as normal. You can also hold a card to block off part of the flashing exposure from selected parts of the paper.

    Jon
    Mendocino Coast Black and White Photography: www.jonshiu.com

  4. #24
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Or, go back to using Diafine and gain a stop of shadow speed back and have easily printable negatives. I think my D23 experiment is about over. At least when I pull the negs off the roll after using Diafine they look like healthy negatives.
    ******
    Rather than keep a separate developer on hand for "pushing," you may wish to try using your stock D23 as a bath A in Divided D23. Your normal or slightly less-than-normal developing time, then into Bath B (an alkali accelerator) of borax, or kodalk, or sodium carbonate. The small amount of metol carried over into Bath B will really exhaust itself in the highlights very quickly, whilst the low and mid-tones strengthen. At least, that is the way it was explained to me.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  5. #25
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,343
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Shiu View Post
    You can also try flashing your paper to tone down your highlights and make them easier to burn in. One way to do is to place a piece translucent acrylic (ie plexi) under the lens and expose for a few seconds (leaving the neg in the enlarger). Then remove plastic an print as normal. You can also hold a card to block off part of the flashing exposure from selected parts of the paper.

    Jon
    Doing that for the whole print has never worked well for me. For me, this was always a recipe for dull prints. However, doing it locally for the highlights only, works well.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #26
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Pushing adds contrast by lowering the values of the shadows while theoretically keeping the high midtones where they would have been if the film's ISO was actually what the film was rated at, and raising the value of the highlights. It should definitely raise contrast and make the brightest highlights very bright. If the details in the high mid tones block up when you do this, it just means you have pushed unnecessarily, or too far.

    To understand it, it helps to look at S curves for a normally exposed and processed film and for an underexposed and overprocessed film; preferably on the same graph. What you are doing by pushing is creating a more contrasty film, so yes, it does become harder to capture detail in the higher tones and the lower tones simultaneously. Imagine taking a technically-difficult, high-contrast film like Iford Pan F and making it an 800 or 1600 film. That is basically what you get when you push 400: a high speed film with the contrast of a low speed film.

    Everybody who often shoots in low light hand held has made the mistake of pushing unnecessarily and losing more from the high end than they wanted. Better judgment of the contrast in which you are shooting (AKA lots of practice and printing of the results) helps, as does a spot meter.

    Some tricks I have used to lower contrast in low-light shots that I have mistakenly overdeveloped are split-grade printing, two-bath lith printing, shadow masking, or copying a low-contrast print on to sheet film and altering exposure and development of the sheet film to get contrast where I want it.

    Sometimes, in low light that is contrasty, it is better to underexpose and leave development as normal (or to "stand" develop) for this very reason.

    However, for me, the whole purpose of pushing is to favorably capture the mid tones on the neg with the density and contrast I want. I don't mind dropped shadows or blown highlights in most low-light hand held pictures; not one bit. I think the contrast often suits the subject matter
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 08-04-2009 at 02:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684

    Before You Drop D-23

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Or, go back to using Diafine and gain a stop of shadow
    speed back and have easily printable negatives. I think
    my D23 experiment is about over. At least when I pull
    the negs off the roll after using Diafine they look like
    healthy negatives.
    Diafine is an A then B developer and it's working, give
    or take some little, the same as any A then B developer.
    Developer depletion and bromide inhibition are the working
    mechanisms. The film Loads with developer in bath A then
    the developer is activated in bath B. The very exposed
    areas soon consume the developer and the bromide
    build up slows development. Little exposed areas
    continue to develop.

    The same mechanisms are at work with Very dilute
    developers when little agitation is used. Prior to ending
    your D-23 experiments you should try it at a 1:7 dilution.
    I use 500ml for a roll of 120. For your self and for starters
    with higher speed film, I suggest 20 minutes with
    3 inversions each 2 or 3 minutes. Dan

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Shiu View Post
    You can also try flashing your paper to tone down your highlights and make them easier to burn in. One way to do is to place a piece translucent acrylic (ie plexi) under the lens and expose for a few seconds (leaving the neg in the enlarger). Then remove plastic an print as normal. You can also hold a card to block off part of the flashing exposure from selected parts of the paper.

    Jon
    Yup: with pushed negs, flashing is your friend. I use a small LED flashlight.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684

    Another Global Solution

    Besides my post 27 and other's suggested global solutions to
    the OP's problem there is the Post Exposure Pre Development
    bleach technique. For short PEPD method. More usually known
    as the SLIMT, Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique.

    The little work I've done using the method has produced
    very rewarding results. In short, an EXTREMELY DILUTE
    ferricyanide bleach is given the exposed print. Dense
    areas of the print are held back allowing additional
    print exposure. Result, highlights gain density.

    Search APUG for, PEPD .

    I've been meaning to post some results but have not
    had the available time to master the scanning and
    posting procedures. Dan

  10. #30
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,826
    The same mechanisms are at work with Very dilute
    developers when little agitation is used. Prior to ending
    your D-23 experiments you should try it at a 1:7 dilution.
    I use 500ml for a roll of 120. For your self and for starters
    with higher speed film, I suggest 20 minutes with
    3 inversions each 2 or 3 minutes. Dan
    Holy cow...least developed negatives I've ever pulled off a roll. I did 1+6 dilution at 20C for 20 min with minimal agitation. You can barely see the image. I don't think they will print but I'll try when they dry.
    f/22 and be there.

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