Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,472   Online: 1068
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Scott addresses a valid point. I do have a densitometer and according to tests, with Efke film developed in Pyrocat HD 1-1-100 my development times should have been SBR 7--8 minutes.

    As it turned out my SBR 7 time is now 11 minutes, SBR 6 --15 minutes, SBR 5 -- 20 minutes, and SBR 4.5 -- 30 minutes. This is for negatives for enlargement on my point light source condenser enlarger. This gives me the look that I want. These negatives will contact print equally as well as enlarging. But I do use the collimated light source of the enlarger as my contact printing light source. I have found that a collimated source has an effect on contact printing. I attribute this to a marked decrease in light scatter from a diffuse source which also lessens the effects of flare.

    I rate this film at EI 100 --SBR 4.5 and SBR 5, EI 80 -- SBR 6, and EI 50 --SBR 7. I haven't done a minus development in over a year.

    I develop in BTZS type tubes.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  2. #22
    Steve Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    520
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by skillian View Post
    Good grief! You guys sure like to make things complicated. Just go out and make some negatives. Print them, see what happens and adjust the process accordingly.
    If more photographers adopted the above policy, they'd come to know there materials equally as well and have a whole bunch of photographs made, instead of just a bunch of tests made.

    AMEN Jim
    Real Photographs are Born Wet !
    http://www.steve-sherman.com

  3. #23
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherman View Post
    If more photographers adopted the above policy, they'd come to know there materials equally as well and have a whole bunch of photographs made, instead of just a bunch of tests made.

    AMEN Jim

    Thank you David and Skillian.

    I agree Jim.

  4. #24
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    For all practical purposes, a negative that enlarges well onto a given paper, will contact print well on the same paper. No, the settings will not be the same because they are different printing processes. No, the results will not be the same because they are different printing processes.

    The place where this question really comes in to play is in making negatives suitable for silver paper, and alt process (pt/pd for instance)

    This is partly responsible for the popularity of Pyro developers, as the resulting negative has different densities for UV light as opposed to light from a conventional source (enlarger or light bulb)

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by skillian View Post
    Good grief! You guys sure like to make things complicated. Just go out and make some negatives. Print them, see what happens and adjust the process accordingly.
    That was my point, really. I was protesting against the 'one size fits all' idea of 'how do negs for contact printing differ from negs for enlarging?'

    If the subject matter and composition are adequate, a neg that is 'good enough' will work fine (my point about inherent flexibility).

    If you want more than 'good enough', your advice is exactly what I would echo (my point about control at different stages).

    Cheers,

    R.

  6. #26
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,167
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I'm asking if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, do you think that a negative for contact printing should most often have different characteristics from that of a negative that will be enlarged
    No

  7. #27
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,058
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I'm almost sorry I asked the question in the first place and perhaps it would be more diplomatic to just walk away from the conversation but I'm bad at that.

    It's not my desire to be argumentative but I'll risk it to suggest that nothing on your list is beyond my comprehension but that by insisting that they must be considered variables, you're trying to reframe my question as more complicated than I had inteded for it to be read.

    You're suggesting variations where I did not. To begin with, let's assume that your #'s 1&2 are the same for both contact and enlarger printing.

    #'s 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 come under the umbrella of optimizing a prinitng processes for one or the other. I didn't ask about that. It's a worthy endeavor but I deliberately tried to keep the scope of my question narrow. Let's assume that those variables are also constant in both scenarios.

    I would even prefer to eliminate #4 as a variable.

    #10 is a variable that cannot be eliminated. It may or may not be an issue for enlargements, it is not for contact printing.

    My question relates to #'s 3, 5 & 6. I'm asking if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, do you think that a negative for contact printing should most often have different characteristics from that of a negative that will be enlarged and what are they.

    When you plan to contact print, do you meter/expose/develop differently than if you plan to enlarge. Yes? No? How? To achieve what distinction in the negative?

    Thanks.
    Since you keep mentioning that you want to know the difference between film exposure and development for contact printing vs. enlarging then that eliminates quite a few processes and materials. That being the case just perfect your negative for enlarging and you should have no problem contact printing your negative.

    The best approach is to get away from your keyboard and go make some photographs. Experience will be your best source of information.

    All too often people make photography too complicated.
    Don Bryant

  8. #28
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by donbga View Post
    Since you keep mentioning that you want to know the difference between film exposure and development for contact printing vs. enlarging...

    In fact, I never once mentioned wanting any such thing. I was looking for insight into other peoples opinions and practices, it the broadest, most general terms. Between the condescending folks and the overly technical "you're not asking the right question" folks I learned some things, just not the things I was interested in knowing about.

    I was asking about what other people do, within a very narrow scope. I was not asking anyone to tell me what I should do. I apologize for not asking either what some assumed I was asking or what others lectured me that I should be asking.

    My question was not flawed. It was the question I wanted to ask. If it's not a question someone is interested in responding to, that's really not my concern.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    If it's not a question someone is interested in responding to, that's really not my concern.
    Sorry: yes it is. If people don't understand your question, or do not believe that it is adequately phrased, it's hard to answer.

    I was trying to avoid being overly technical. My primary point was simply that the differences will depend so much on what YOU want that others' experiences are of such limited value as to be effectively useless. My secondary point -- echoed by several others -- was that the best thing to do is to make some negs; think about the variables; and make such changes as you think fit or can conveniently make. The enlarger flare point is fundamental; all others warrant whatever consideration you care to give them.

    Otherwise we're into the old A-level questions: 'assuming an inextensible string of negligible mass...' There are simply more variables than you seem willing to address.

    The most basic answer is, "Any neg that contact prints OK should be capable of enlarging OK too." Then you have to add "though you will almost certainly need harder paper for the enlargement, depending on the enlarger." Then you add...

    Today I have just made my first 12x15 inch negs with my 100-year-old Gandolfi. When I have developed the first (I shot three of the same subject, all on Bergger BPF 200), I'll make judgements on how to develop the second... This is the ONLY realistic way to determine what negs you need for any purpose (enlarging is hardly an option at 12x15 inch). Others' opinions really are of somewhat limited value.

    Cheers,

    R.

  10. #30
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    "I'll make judgements on how to develop the second..." Roger

    Since I don't own a densitometer, this is the way I work as well. Shot some Efke 25 in dead-flat light yesterday and am playing with stand development and pyrocat-hd. Did the first shot, guessed at correct time, developed and printed. Next negative needed about a stop more development, did same, will print tonight to see how close I was. Plot curve, look for different lighting and do again, etc, etc. tim

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