data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6a7a/b6a7aebd15d563c51c12b94087b8a0fe6666a4f0" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/05d81/05d81c51909faee3345e8e7954c2c9d760d7424f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/edec3/edec3d7cebccb8060b5c5273f5f316427fb2e4f5" alt="" |
I have posted the same information on a few of the other forums. Please excuse the redundancy, but I wanted to elicit the maximum number of responses!
I have a considerable number of film curves done with 4x5 sheet film and drawn on plotter assuming that a diffusion light source is used. I have tested my commonly used papers as well, but testing on a step wedge with a diffusion light source. I am curious: Can the same film data be used BUT the parameters in plotter changed so that plotter can furnish reliable exposure and development information for a POINT source ( condenser head )in ExpoDev? Of course, the film has to be developed to a certain ES...so, the same question obtains regarding the paper-or will the ES values be so different that the data used for a diffusion head will be unusable? I will pose the same questions on a few other forums. Thanks for helping.
Incidentally, does anyone think that enlarments made with a condenser enlarger ( 4x5 to 8x10 or 11x14-most often the former ) are any "better ( sharper, more contrasty, anything!? ) then those made with the more usual diffusion enlarger?
Unfortunately...little action on the BTZS site....oh well.
Elliot |
|
|
|
|
|