Nothing below 3? Hmmm. I'm finding grade 2 with a saturated neg to have a nice quantity of highlight detail. Of course having a color head makes things really straight-forward.
But it depends on the film as well as the subject being printed. That pic I posted of the young lady a few weeks ago -- that was a normal exposure on the film side, normal development, but printing just a bit more than grade 3. http://members.safe-t.net/dpconsult/ashley.jpg I did a grade 2 print as well. In that she's less distinct from the background but has more detail in the skin tones. The '3' print on the web did require some burning in for the face. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:30:05 -0500 >From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Hey you b and w darkroom guys - help! >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >thanks, Colin >This is kinda what I wanted to know... I never liked D-76 for my own stuff and >would >have considered less contrast as the developer aged to be a negative (no pun) >rather than >a positive (I printed almost nothing lower than "3" in my dark room days) > >I just never used Universal for anything but prints. >I love Microdol-x 1:3 for Tri-x but the woman I'm teaching got talked out of >getting it by a storekeep when she told him she thought I had told here to get >it for prints >(for one thing) He didn't have any, so he didn't want to sim,ply correct her - >and she didn't >think to call me on cell phone while she was in the store.. >i'm trekking out to Long Island tomorrow to give her private lessons. > >Hurray for craigslist! I need the gig! > >ann > > > > >Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > >> B&W has gone through so many stylistic changes in the past >> few years, it's amazing. Many people I read on NGs shoot an >> extra 1/3 to 1/2 stop of extra saturation and then develop >> normally. (Personally, I shoot most b&w by the book but add >> about 5% extra time to the processing to bring out the >> highlight detail a bit more.) >> >> Isn't Ilford Universal their ID-11, very similar to or the same as D-76? If >> so, that class of developer has an interesting characteristic that you might >> make good use of. Let it have a day of a little air exposure and turn a >> little dark. This will keep contrast under control and give some smoother >> tones to Tri-X. >> >> But apart from that experiment, just develop normally for a good neg. Tri-X >> is very forgiving of a few seconds either way. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> C. Brendemuehl >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >> >Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:03:11 -0500 >> >From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> > >> >I'm about to give a woman lessons in film >> >developing -- >> >she acquired Ilford Universal developer - she shot >> >tri-x >> >I'm a Microdol 1:3 gal (ot chemicals in stock >> >chez moi now) >> > >> >(nevermind why we aren't using that for the lesson >> >- long story) >> > >> >Anyway, anyone have preferences for developing >> >times and dilutions for >> >Tri-X ? Using the Ilford Universal? >> > >> >Would prefer personal experience as opposed to a >> >link on the web. >> > >> >Thanks much! >> >annsan >> > > ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
