|
|
 | | Author | |
|
| | Date | |
|
|
|
|
Jorge |
4:02 27 Sep 06 |
|
|
Miles |
16:27 27 Sep 06 |
|
|
Phil Davis |
17:24 27 Sep 06 |
|
|
Miles |
19:43 27 Sep 06 |
|
|
hermit |
19:38 3 Sep 06 |
  |
I started my testing last night and continued today. I started with the Kodak Polycontrast IV RC paper. I bought some 4x5 for testing film holders and contract printing negatives. I got the following results which seem reasonable. I am using an Omega enlarger with a color head. Using the Kodak recommended settings I got the following results. The range is a little 'compacted' but the numbers seem reasonable. (Let's hope the formatting survives the submit button)
(this is a cut and paste from a spread sheet formulas)
Filter IDmax IDmin ES 'box contrast'
90y 2.04 0.37 1.67 -1
52y 2.18 0.60 1.57 0
25y 2.32 0.93 1.39 1
20m 2.29 1.09 1.20 2
38m 2.14 1.07 1.07 3
63m 2.00 1.09 0.91 4
100m 1.94 1.06 0.89 5
I cut up some Kentmere and Ilford variable contrast papers and repeated. The results are absolute garbage. I won't bother to print them here. At least I know why I have been spinning my wheels trying to get a decent print. The Kodak has been printing soft and I have been using that to judge overall negative quality, then trying to print on the other two. OUCH! I only bought the variable contrast papers thinking that it would be more economical since I was just returning to doing some B&W work. So, I either find out why the variable contrast stuff isn't working for me and fix it, or switch to graded.
I have to say I have nothing but the highest regards for the zone practitioners that can eyeball their way through
'manufactures discrepancies' like these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hermit |
8:44 9 Sep 06 |
|
|
hermit |
17:32 22 Sep 06 |
|
|
Steve Nicholls |
18:10 2 Sep 06 |
|
|
Phil Davis |
8:24 3 Sep 06 |
|
|
Miles |
8:06 2 Sep 06 |
|
