RE: Best CI for process

From: Eric Neilsen ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/04/05-09:26:40 AM Z
Message-id: <20051004152643.2513676F36@spamf4.usask.ca>

I thought that we may be using a different point to interpret the data when
you said 12 steps. Yes, After beating this horse to the finish, I think that
after an initial period of testing to come up with a personal iso, ci, es,.
we move on to real scenes with real detail and modify a little here or a
little there. You may want to enhance your visual aids on the web site to
more accurately portray the out come. So if any one is still paying
attention, like the poster looking for a place to rest their shadow
exposure. After you run some test of your own, with your camera, developer
and film, just make sure you get the reveal your vision whether that is dark
and inky or more open and textured.

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

  _____

From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@CLEMSON.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:13 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: Best CI for process

 

Eric,

 

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 discussion.

 

Sandy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

  _____

From: Ender100@aol.com [mailto:Ender100@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:15 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
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 @
 <http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/> 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!
 <http://www.markinelsonphoto.com/> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com

In a message dated 10/3/05 8:29:28 PM, e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net 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 09:29:35 2005

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