Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You mean about teaching Vuescan to embed profiles? Not sure I understand the connection.You are the OP, and the reply was to your last post.
Ian
@thronobulax I know you like EMA but was wondering what tests you had done with FomaPan 200 with standard dilution 1+1+100 and what times you settled on
When agitating normally, reducing development time will thin the negative and it will reduce effective ASA. Failing to compensate for this will remove detail from the shadows. IOW, a reduction in development time, thins both shadows and highlights. Moreover, it will almost inevitably reduce the mid-tone local contrast, which is almost always a bad thing.Most of this is all Greek to me, but…
If I wanted to get thinner negs, especially if I found they would print better, I’d simply reduce the time. Typical advice is to reduce by 20%.
This seems entirely reasonable to me. It’s difficult to believe that some anonymous court mathematician in Babylon managed to hit on the perfect time for a specialist film-developing process when he invented the sixty-minute hour.
I may, of course, be wrong.
<Shrug> I found it helpful. Perhaps others will. You clearly didn't. It's a big world, with many ways to conquer the problem.If you go reading things like that, you will never produce high quality images.
Ian
That is correct, he is no fan. What's amusing is that SLIMT is a far more complex way to do the same thing, in my view. I've not tried it, but prebleaching negatives when you don't yet know their likely densities seems like it's just asking for trouble.Interestingly David Kachel is not an advocate of Stand/Semi-stand/EMA methods or Pyro developers:
"Post after post talks about using pyro with techniques for reducing contrast where the subject matter does not call for reduced contrast: split developers/water bath / dilute still bath / minimal agitation, all classes of contraction development (reduced contrast) that I thoroughly shot down as both ineffectual and risky, a quarter century ago."
His preferred method is SLIMT with a developer like D-76 or HC-110.
@Ian Grant. I already explained in patient detail that the negative is full of shadow detail, I just made an aesthetic decision to render the lake shore line much more darkly than the negative would suggest. You're free to disagree with that choice, of course, but assuming facts not in evidence, or worse still, ignoring the facts that are in evidence seems destined only to provoke arguments for their own sake. You can easily download the image in question and adjust it digitally to see if what I am saying true. If that doesn't work, I'll email you a scan of the negative.If you look at Kachel's images, he's going more towards Ralph Gibson's approach of high contrast and low to no shadow detail.
Look at the difference between the tonality of the image Ian Barber posted today and the Lake image, now Ian's image can be interpreted with higher or lower contrast, but because there's little to no shadow detail in the Lake image there aren't so many options. Same film & developer, get good negatives and options are wider for post development interpretations.
Ian
David Katchel is a familiar name but I can’t, for the life of me, recall,what I read.
Thank you for the clarification on sixty minutes.
My suggestion remains, however. If the apple of thinner negs (which are easier to print) has fallen on your head, why are you following a different procedure?
I can understand that curiosity may be driving your quest for the exact number of eyes of newt.
My general approach to all things photographic is to eliminate variables and improve consistency, so I can spend my time primarily on aesthetics. Kachel is an marvelous expositor of all things photographic, so I was interested in SLIMT as an alternative to semistand or EMA. But as I read more deeply, I abandoned any further exploration for two reasons: 1) SLIMT felt far less repeatable than sticking film in a highly dilute developer for an hour every time, no exceptions. 2) SLIMT means you're still agitating normally when you do develop. That means losing the mid tone contrast expansion inherent in long, high dilution development models.In my experience with SLIMT, I found it useful for high contrast material like docu films, paper negatives, reversal processing of paper, etc and these are not the kind of stuff Kachel is interested in. I was trying to get pictorial results with the help of SLIMT which was difficult otherwise.
My general approach to all things photographic is to eliminate variables and improve consistency, so I can spend my time primarily on aesthetics.
My general approach to all things photographic is to eliminate variables and improve consistency, so I can spend my time primarily on aesthetics.
Apparently, in your misery, the only satisfactory answer I can provide is ... WoofYour posts contain some very contradictory statements, you are looking for.
But the approaches you are taking do just the opposite, have no basis on good practice, and vary from those you quote.
Every explanation you post is a mess, almost gibberish. My Dalmation could explain better with a few barks.
That's what most of us want and some of us have achieved, and is what you seem to have lost.
Ian