FotoDave@aol.com
Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:49:50 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 99-04-13 21:14:32 EDT, lawless@vignette.freeserve.co.uk
writes:
> but I wanted, originally, to make the method as simple as
> possible, and what could be simpler than using the enlarger to flash, at
the
> same aperture as used for the base exposure? Stopping down probably isn't
> an option as you were already working at f/32 ....
Phil Davis recommends, I don't remember in a magazine article or in his book,
the use of 2 stacked-up foam cup to cover the lens.... I didn't quite like
it, but it does work.
> Base exposure
> times are not really very critical, so if you have an enlarging exposure
> meter (e.g. the Ilford EM-10) you can use it to obtain a sufficiently
> accurate estimate of the normal exposure, and apply the factor to the time
> obtained. The instructions supplied with such instruments usually say to
> calibrate them for the brightest highlight tone, but I get better results
> calibrating for the deepest shadows.
I think you might be switching the highlight-shadow terminologies with
low-density, high-density. It doesn't really matter, but some might get
confused. :) I believe the instructions suggests to calibrate with the
low-density area, which is shadows in a negative. I believe the reason for
that is if you are making large enlargement, the light might not be enough
for the sensor if you use the high-density area. Other than that I find that
it works with either highlight or shadows.
But more related the discussion is that you don't really have to calibrate
for the base exposure and then apply the factor. You can calibrate so that
the exposure is correct. Basically what you need to do is to calibrate it so
that the *shadow* falls on the starting linear region of the shoulder of the
positive (which will become the starting linear region of the toe of the
reversed negative).
> I'm still learning too.
Me too. Aren't we all? :)
Dave S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31