Your interpretation of the values is correct. My (red) safelights are tested to be 'safe' for up to 32 minutes. These tests show developing times up to 6 minutes. Consequently, safelight fogging can be ignored.
Ralph, thanks for the answer, your remark does make me ponder a bit on though.
I started thinking: in most cases, safe light testing is described by having a piece of DRY paper (so not lying in the developer) being exposed to the safe light's light for an extended period of time. This mimics working conditions during the exposure and any subsequent burning actions.
However, now wondering about it, how sensitive is paper to fogging while being submerged in the developer? I could imagine there is a difference... although I can't really remember ever having read about it.
Is there something you can say about it: fogging of a dry piece of paper versus fogging of a piece of photo paper emerged in developer, both receiving exactly the same amount of light?
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
Ralph, thanks for the answer, your remark does make me ponder a bit on though.
I started thinking: in most cases, safe light testing is described by having a piece of DRY paper (so not lying in the developer) being exposed to the safe light's light for an extended period of time. This mimics working conditions during the exposure and any subsequent burning actions.
However, now wondering about it, how sensitive is paper to fogging while being submerged in the developer? I could imagine there is a difference... although I can't really remember ever having read about it.
Is there something you can say about it: fogging of a dry piece of paper versus fogging of a piece of photo paper emerged in developer, both receiving exactly the same amount of light?
Marco
Marco
First of all, safelight testing is done with dry, pre-exposed paper, because already exposed paper is more sensitive to additional exposures than unexposed paper.
Now to your main question, dry vs wet. Try the following test. Exposed a dry piece of paper to what would result into a medium gray (most sensitive part of the characteristic curve). Then, place another piece into a shallow dish filled with water and let it soak for a few minutes before you give it the same exposure. Develop both. I did this with Ilford MGIV-RC and was not able to detect any difference.
That said, I have the habit to turn the paper face-down in the developer. Consequently, it is a bit more protected than usual.
Aren't "dry, pre-exposed paper, because already exposed paper" the same thing ?
Ian
Sorry if I didn't say it right.
First of all, safelight testing is done with dry, pre-exposed paper, because already exposed paper is more sensitive to additional exposures than unexposed paper.
in other words:
Safelight testing must be done with pre-exposed paper, because pre-exposed paper is more sensitive to additional exposures than unexposed paper.
OK, I took the sage advice from this forum. Mixed fresh Dektol and did a test photo. It was the tried old Dektol that was killing me.
Of all of the prints I have done up to this point, last night was the first time I feel like I achieved "some" success. What do you think of the "print" ? The composition is fair but I think I achieved some good tonal values, enlarge focus etc.
No touch up of any kind has been done...this is a straight scan.
Learning to scan prints opposed to negatives needs some work...
The scanning process can interfere with discussions of this type, but if I was going to evaluate the print itself, I would be looking at the following issues:
1) Are the details and contrast in the mid-tones pleasing to you;
2) Do the bright parts of the image "sparkle", with visible detail; and
3) Is there texture and detail in the shadows?
Would you mind showing us the original negative with the fresh batch of dektol?
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
OK, I took the sage advice from this forum. Mixed fresh Dektol and did a test photo. It was the tried old Dektol that was killing me.
Of all of the prints I have done up to this point, last night was the first time I feel like I achieved "some" success. What do you think of the "print" ? The composition is fair but I think I achieved some good tonal values, enlarge focus etc.
No touch up of any kind has been done...this is a straight scan.
Learning to scan prints opposed to negatives needs some work...
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
Adv Reply
