wrote:
Lazy ones use cameras with automatic exposure
Geez, I forgot they exist, welcome to the XXI


Where the contrast is too low, one can increase the development time to
raise the contrast

and control the highlights with agitation, I like low contrast range
scenes, since I like that kind of flexibility


I do not know what a D-3 type of negative method is.

Did I write D-3? Oh my, I meant 3-D,
according to this typology http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mo...Ringaroun3.jpg
3-D is the third example from the left. In this case slightly
overexposed and uderdeveloped (7-D is the opposite)

That is a ring-around. I still do not know what you mean by third from the
left. That would be the one on the right, but there are three on the right.

Can you explain what you mean by open shadows and flat dull highlights?

Technically everything was okay, but the impression of the unmasked,
expanded shadows and compressed highlights wasn't..er refreshing.

If the image was like that in the ring-around, then only image number 5
would be what one would normally want for the final print. (Depends, of
course, on what you actually want.)

If your shadows were "expanded" then it sounds as though you overdeveloped
and overexposed the film. If the highlights were compressed, then it sounds
as though you were so overexposed that they got up on the shoulder of the
film (very rare with modern films: the only film I ever used that had a
shoulder in the useful range of exposure was Kodak's Panatomic-X). Since you
claim both, it sounds as though you severely exposed your film (by three or
more stops, I would expect).

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:30:02 up 25 days, 9:32, 3 users, load average: 4.38, 4.12, 4.04