RE: Best CI for process

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/04/05-09:12:31 AM Z
Message-id: <p0602040bbf6848018b5c@[]>


I certainly agree that the print must be made by feel. And it is not
like I or anyone is constantly applying terms from sensitometry to
their printing. In fact, once I run a basic time/temperature test of
a film and plot the results I don't do anything more complicated than
expose for the shadows and develop the film for the CI range
suggested by the tests.

As soon as you answered Mark's question about how you counted the
steps of your Pt./Pd. step wedge prints I realized that the we were
using different language to describe our result. As soon as I
realized that I went back to one of my palladium curves, which
indicated an ES of 1.85 when based on calculating IDmax as 90% of
Dmax, and changed the desired IDmax to 100% of Dmax. The ensuing
curve then suggested an ES of well over 2.4, much as I anticipated.

I think there is a lesson here somewhere, and for me it is that we
all have different systems of printing and when we engage in that
activity we do pretty much what we want to, but to communicate that
system and its results to someone else requires that we use common
terminology. That language does not have to be the language of
sensitometry, though I see benefits in it. It could be just a matter
of understanding how we measure things, as was the case in this


>I know, you're a kidder. I use the mix for two purposes, contrast
>and color. I start at 50/50 most of the time and start with Na based
>palladium. I hold in reserve the ammonium based palladium to
>maintain a cooler toned print and get the long scale of palladium.
> Some people are blessed with one work flow, their own, and other
>have one work flow that needs to accommodate a broader range of
>starting points. I can't always craft the negative to a place my own
>work would come from so between mask and different mixes I hope to
>make a print the buyer will like. The hardest thing to do is make
>detail happen where there is little or no separation in the SHADOWS.
>If need be, pencils are my magic marker. Talk about local control. :
>After looking at Sandy's numbers, his scale is like my scale in many
>ways. In the data provided, which is not meant as the definitive
>proof. Sandy's scale is every bit as full as mine. That is why I
>look at numbers. I remember learning the CI, ES, Flare etc, back in
>college and said, that is all well and good, but you still need to
>make the print by feel.
>Eric Neilsen Photography
>4101 Commerce Street
>Suite 9
>Dallas, TX 75226
>From: []
>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:15 AM
>Subject: Re: Best CI for process
>Hi Eric,
>I was only kidding about the ES Envy.....
>But I still am interested in what brings you to use the long
>exposure scale...or are you saying that's not what you usually use?
>In either case, I'm just curious as to why people pick certain
>contrast mixes. No hidden agenda with the question. People develop
>workflows and choices of things like contrast mixes, papers, etc for
>good reasons and usually whatever they pick works pretty well for
>them. As you say, since you print for other people you have to be
>sure of the outcome.
>Best Wishes,
>Mark Nelson
>Purchase the eBook & PDN System for Your Own Custom Digital Negative
>Workflow @
><>Precision Digital Negatives
>PDN's Own 31-Step Tablet Now Available-produced by Stouffer Industries
>Coming Soon-Curve Calculator II will let you choose your toes!
>In a message dated 10/3/05 8:29:28 PM, writes:
>Mark it is not exposure scale envy, but image recovery. I print not
>only for myself but make prints for other people. Believe it or not,
> not everyone uses the Zone system, pre visualization or any other
>method to predict an out come and yet they still want to make a
>platinum print from the shoot. In order to get everything, I
>sometimes find my self stretching backwards and forwards.
>If I can do it, then when I need to do it it is not such a reach.
>I normally use a mix of 50/50 which produces a steeper curve than
>the one mentioned.
Received on Tue Oct 4 09:13:16 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:18 AM Z CST