There is indeed - thanks for the link, Tom. t
On 10/26/04 13:41, Graywolf wrote: > You might want to check out the analog photography users group; > > http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php > > Lots of good stuff there. > > -- > > Don Sanderson wrote: >> Thanks Tom, I'll have to try a roll and see what happens. >> Now I'm waiting for someone to respond to the question on Diafine >> developer. >> Hadn't heard of it till today, verrrrryyy in-ter-es-ting! >> >> Don >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:08 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: C-41 Process Black and White >>> >>> >>> Traditional B&W film has a 'S' shaped characteristic curve where >>> the shadows are >>> compressed together at the bottom and the highlights are >>> compressed together at >>> the top with an almost straight line portion in the middle. That >>> straight line >>> portion is where you normally fit your exposure. It is, at normal >>> development, >>> about 10 stops long. (If you can get a hold of a copy of the data >>> sheet for >>> almost any professional film they will show the characteristic >>> curves of the >>> film on it for different developing times. You can probably down >>> load data >>> sheets from Kodaks website.) >>> >>> Chromogenic B&W has a much longer straight line portion something >>> in the order >>> of 15 stops (do to separate layers of differing speed instead of >>> differing >>> colors). That is why you can use different ASA's with the same >>> development. You >>> are just taking the 7 stops of your print from higher or lower along that >>> straight line portion of the curve. >>> >>> Chromogenic films do print much better on regular B&W paper but >>> the negatives >>> tend to be fairly low contrast and require that you use a high >>> contrast filter >>> and develop the paper for about the maximum time the paper will >>> allow (2-3 >>> minutes with most paper). >>> >>> I used to use XP1 extensively. Supposedly the only difference was XP2 is >>> optimized for C-41 development while XP1 was optimized for its >>> own developer but >>> could be developed in C-41. From what I have seen XP1 developed >>> in XP1 developer >>> was sightly better than XP2 in C-41, but XP2 in C-41 is better >>> than XP1 was. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Don Sanderson wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Collin, >>>> >>>> Don't understand "toe or shoulder", is this steep >>> >>> highlight/shadow curve? >>> >>>> Don >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:41 AM >>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Subject: Re: C-41 Process Black and White >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's a mixed bag. >>>>> >>>>> Some labs handle it well and give you nice results. >>>>> Tones are really soft but even. So it works well for >>>>> many portrait situations and the results are very >>>>> predictable. A good thing. And using the ubiquitous C-41 >>>>> process is a very convenient feature. >>>>> >>>>> Not much of a toe or shoulder, IIRC. (Someone correct me if I'm >>>>> wrong on that.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> C. Brendemuehl >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have >>>>> come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the >>>>> first.' Ronald Reagan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________________________________ >>>>> Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> graywolf >>> http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html >>> >>> >> >> >>
