Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 2:44:54 PM, Shel wrote: SB> No chart is perfect, of course, but this one will provide a good point SB> of reference and will allow one to get close a lot closer than anything [...]
Yep, I use the ilford chart with good success. And for me, there is a line in being "anal" about all the variables which I don't want to cross - if the picture that comes out of it is nice, so be it. If it could be a little nicer if I spent another month experimenting and honing my developing to that little fraction of zone or whatever, tough luck - I am not that patient. And it's perfectly true about the equipment... nothing is perfect or 100% in real world, and we are photographers, not photometers or photocopyists. Of course we could use laboratories for our darkrooms with 100% same temperature, humidity, etc every time, but what's the point if my prints are perfect for me, and the improvement is too small at too large investment of either time or money or both? Second, as you said, also all my photography books recommend, testing your own equipment, like l.meters, etc. The variables out there are just too many to be able to work according to some laboratory receipt. If 30% shorter times work the best for you, that's perfect! And if 20% longer times work for me, that's perfect too! Frantisek (ehm, did I say at least _anything_ not said before? Sorry <g> - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
