Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,903   Posts: 1,521,217   Online: 1103
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,158
    Images
    20
    No need to apologize, Mark. You'll learn something from it, and I'll certainly learn something from it. I think that challenging negs are interesting for a negative exchange, since they'll force us to try different solutions.

    If it were my own neg, I'd probably try local intensification on the neg to bring up the detail that's there in the shadows and then water bath development on the print to minimize contrast as well as some burning for the highlights. Since it's not my neg, I won't do anything that will permanently change the neg like local intensification, but I may try a contrast mask, which is not a technique I've used very much.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  2. #12
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Does BTZS require access to a densitometer?
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    Mark,

    Another method of handling these high scene brightness ratio (high contrast) situations is through proportional exposure as opposed to reduction in development.

    Reduction in development will always lead to a compression of highlight values. Proportional exposure will maintain highlight tonal separation. I have a couple of images posted in the technical gallery that show the results obtainable with this process. This will work in situations where one would have SBRs of 11 or N-4.
    The only problem I see with this is that you are the only one who knows what you are talking about. I have been waiting for this article since you first posted this newfangled proportional exposure method and have yet to know what the heck it is.....so get off your butt and publish it already!!!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Flotsam
    Does BTZS require access to a densitometer?
    Yep, that is the one draw back it has, you need to have one or access to one to be able to make accurate testing.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    The only problem I see with this is that you are the only one who knows what you are talking about. I have been waiting for this article since you first posted this newfangled proportional exposure method and have yet to know what the heck it is.....so get off your butt and publish it already!!!
    The article has been submitted. Waiting to hear if they will pick it up.

  6. #16
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    Mark, recently I've been experimenting again with azo printing and have finally made a discovery which to me is earth shaking (ok guys, it is to me at least). I'd been trying to print negatives which are "out of range" for the paper with mixed results, and it finally clicked. This may be another way of looking at exposure and development for you, as it was for me. My negatives had too much contrast and I didn't use amidol as a developer, so water bath development didn't work.

    I had negatives which were too contrasty for the paper I had, just a poor match for the scale of the paper. I got good highlights, but black shadows. If I printed for the shadows, the highlights were just not there at all, not enough exposure. What I started doing was to print with more exposure to first get highlights in place. This would give me the black shadows without detail. Obviously, something was not working. What I ended up doing was to give MORE exposure of the paper and reduced development. It lets the highlights firm up, but reduced development stops the shadows from blocking up and turning to tar.

    In effect, I was using the same trick you would use for too much contrast in a scene when using film. You know there will be no shadow values without sufficient exposure (same thing on the azo, the highlights must burn in enough for detail, remember its backwards for paper), so you give the film plenty of exposure to make sure there is something on the film except empty space. In doing this, the highlights are now way too far up the scale for a decent print (too much density to print through), but they are affected by development (same as the shadow values on azo paper), so you reduce development just enough to retain textures on the high end.

    While I know this may not be news to most of the people here, it is doing the same thing with paper that you do with film. If there is too much contrast in a scene (paper or film), more exposure is given to register those details which are on the threshold, at the edge of exposure below which there is nothing there. Once this is done, you now have too much exposure for a "normal" development time. The other side of the coin is a reduction in development, which will stop those highlights from becoming too thick to print through (or in the case of paper, blocked shadows which are too fully developed).

    I hope this helps a bit. It sounds like you are getting a feel for the contrast range, now a bit of tinkering is in order. Try giving more exposure and less development and bracket a bit. Keep notes.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,231
    Images
    9
    News to me. Thanks
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  8. #18
    Shesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    161
    Noseoil,

    Would'nt pre-flashing the paper have helped in your situation?

    Wonderful thread, BTW. Thanks all.
    Cheers, Shesh

    Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a child - Cicero

  9. #19
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    Shesh, haven't tried this on azo at this point. Perhaps this would be easier in the long run than juggling exposure and development. Do I have this wrong? (Don, Jorge?) In any event, the exposure / development trick certainly works well with azo.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by noseoil
    Shesh, haven't tried this on azo at this point. Perhaps this would be easier in the long run than juggling exposure and development. Do I have this wrong? (Don, Jorge?) In any event, the exposure / development trick certainly works well with azo.
    Well, IMO I rather have all the information in the negative than trying to "fix it" in the DR. That is a PS approach....

    I say go for the exposure/development juggling until you get it right and are confident your negatives will print as you want them to.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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