A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Print So Fine" paper developer



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 9th 06, 11:18 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer


"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...
All films have slopes that vary over the scale of the
negative.
'Separation' is just another term for 'steep gradation'.

The slope at any point of a fil'm's curve is an indication
of the
contrast in that part of the scale. If the slope in the
mid-tones is
low (e.g., TMY) mid-tone separation will suffer. The slope
of TMY is
higher in the upper end of the density scale than in the
mid-tones.
Theerfore, highlight separation with TMY is greater than
mid-tone
separation. With Tri-X, it is just the reverse.

TMY:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...002_0507ac.gif

Tri-X:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0490ac.gif

In general I have to agree with this. The relation
between the tones of the original scene and the tone
reproduction on the print are controlled by the response of
both emulsions. The response is what is shown in the
characteristic curve, sometimes called the H&D curve. These
curves vary from paper to paper and from film to film. Note
that overall contrast is shown by the slope of the curve.
High contrast materials range from their minimum to maximum
densities with small changes in exposing light, low contrast
materials require a large change of exposure for the same
density variation. However, the _relative_ values depend on
the distribution of sensitivity of the halide particles,
which is what the _shape_ of the curve reveals. A
demonstration can be found by comparing two Kodak films:
400T-Max and ISO 320 Tri-X. T-Max is a relatively "straight
line" film with a short toe (definition of toe is below).
The ISO-320 version of Tri-X has a very long toe, in fact
the curve is upward deflected all along its usable length.
The difference in tone rendition will evident by thinking
about the effect of this in relation to the original scene
brightnesses. If you match the two curves for equal contrast
index and for the same shadow and highlight densities, you
will find that the Tri-X has less density for the mid-grays,
so it will reproduce them darker than T-Max. This is
sometimes desirable. One can find similar differences in
paper curves except that a long toe on paper will result in
brighter mid tones.
In general, developers have little effect on the shape of
the curve. However, additives like Potassium bromide does
affect them. Bromide tends to suppress the very lowest
exposures, so it has the effect of reducing the usable toe
area. Another way of stating this is that it increases the
relative contrast of the toe of either film or paper. The
effect on film is to suppress fog and, if much is used, to
lower speed. On paper the effect is also to reduce fog and
to brighten the highlights.
Specific developing agents do not have much effect but
overall contrast of the paper can be varied a little (for
some papers). The variation possible is not nearly so great
as for film because film for pictorial use (as opposed to
graphic arts use) is developed far short of its maximum
possible contrast. Prints, OTOH, are usually developed to
their maximum contrast, or at least, to reach their maximum
densities. Some so called low contrast developers are merely
slow and do not reach this density in normal development
times (or sometimes ever). Some developers are selective in
a way that does affect overall contrast but the range is
limited, certainly less than one paper grade. Again, except
for adding bromide or Benzotriazole, there is little effect
on curve _shape_. BTW, neither variable contrast or graded
papers have consistent curve shape throughout their contrast
ranges. In most cases one grade different negatives can be
printed to have identical tone rendition by changing the
paper grade one step. The same with printing the same
negative on a condenser and a diffusion enlarger, but larger
variations may show some differences in mid-tone
reproduction.
Contrast and image color. Image color of prints (and
negatives too) depends largely on the scattering of light in
the emulsion. This is in turn controlled by the particle
size of the silver making up the image. Extremely finely
devided silver looks bright yellow (its used as the filter
layer in Kodachrome). As it become coarser it shift toward
blue. Since the grain size of the image is somewhat due to
the developer very active developers that tend to produce
coarse grains also tend to produce bluer colored images.
Less active developers, for instance Kodak Selectol Soft and
Ansco 120 (nearly identical) tend to produce finer grains
and warmer images. They also tend toward lower contrast and
slower development.
Tone Seperation.
I am never quite sure what is meant by this. presumably
the ability to detect small variations in brightness. This
is partly affected by the resolution of the image. Blurry
images do not have good separation of anything including
tone values since they tend to blend into one another.
Partly, it is due to so called local contrast. At the
highlight and shadow ends of a print the contrast is lower
than in the mid gray area regardless of the paper, film, and
developers used. This is because the toe of the film is
affecting the shadow area contrast and the toe of the paper
is affecting the highlight area. Often, when photographers
complain of lack of tone separation in highlights (blocked
highlights) its because they are trying to print a greater
range of brightness than the paper is capable of
reproducing. The only solution to this is burning in, either
by hand or by means of a contrast mask of some sort. If
variable contrast paper is used the blocked areas can be
printed in using a lower contrast filter (with masking).
The eye wants to see contrast similar to the original
scene so simply lowering the contrast of the reproduction
won't look right.
As far as any developer claiming to modify the paper
curve shape (or film for that matter) the proof is in
properly done sensitometric testing. If there _is_ an effect
it will show up plainly on an H&D curve. There is a lot of
room for errors to creep in this sort of testing so one must
be wary tests which are not very carefully designed and
controlled.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #12  
Old February 10th 06, 04:03 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

Nicholas Lindan has written to me and will be posting the response I
sent him, but the claim we make is supported by subjective analysis of
the print. We strive to post accurate information on our web site and
all product descriptions are designed to help people find what they are
looking for. Unlike a lot of other companies in the market,
Digitaltruth Photo is run by photographers.

Personally, I have used a lot of print developers and based on my own
experience if I was looking for a warm-tone image with excellent
gradation, then Print-So-Fine would be my choice. Its not a fast
developer - typically taking a minute more than a standard developer -
so its not for everyone, but I would recommend it to anyone who wants
better contrast control. The image appears slowly so it is easier to
pull the paper out of the developer before the highlights lose their
sparkle.

I agree with Richard Knoppow's post, and given that sensitometry is
complex I prefer to judge things with my own eye. A print is usually
judged by people who look at it and not by scientific analysis;
however, we do have people making sensitometric tests and will publish
the data as soon as it can be properly assessed. I can assure you that
there is no apparent visible loss of density reported by the various
people who have made subjective analyses of the prints, so even if the
sensitometry shows a technical reduction in density this does not
invalidate the experience of actual users. I'd love to publish jpegs on
our web site, but there is no way to show the subtlety of the effect on
a monitor.

--Jon Mided

Digitaltruth Photo
http://www.digitaltruth.com

  #13  
Old February 10th 06, 04:30 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

A paper developer formulated without hydroquinine (which is what I
suspect this product is) could still give a good D-Max, but would
perhaps act slower. If KBr is added, that could also change things,
including adding some warmth. It cannot, however, give hugher contrast
in the mid-tones if measured objectively, but if the D-Max is ever so
slighly less, the mid-tones could APPEAR to be more vigorous in
comparison.


Digitaltruth wrote:
Nicholas Lindan has written to me and will be posting the response I
sent him, but the claim we make is supported by subjective analysis of
the print. We strive to post accurate information on our web site and
all product descriptions are designed to help people find what they are
looking for. Unlike a lot of other companies in the market,
Digitaltruth Photo is run by photographers.

Personally, I have used a lot of print developers and based on my own
experience if I was looking for a warm-tone image with excellent
gradation, then Print-So-Fine would be my choice. Its not a fast
developer - typically taking a minute more than a standard developer -
so its not for everyone, but I would recommend it to anyone who wants
better contrast control. The image appears slowly so it is easier to
pull the paper out of the developer before the highlights lose their
sparkle.

I agree with Richard Knoppow's post, and given that sensitometry is
complex I prefer to judge things with my own eye. A print is usually
judged by people who look at it and not by scientific analysis;
however, we do have people making sensitometric tests and will publish
the data as soon as it can be properly assessed. I can assure you that
there is no apparent visible loss of density reported by the various
people who have made subjective analyses of the prints, so even if the
sensitometry shows a technical reduction in density this does not
invalidate the experience of actual users. I'd love to publish jpegs on
our web site, but there is no way to show the subtlety of the effect on
a monitor.

--Jon Mided

Digitaltruth Photo
http://www.digitaltruth.com


  #14  
Old February 10th 06, 04:32 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

On 10 Feb 2006 07:03:18 -0800, "Digitaltruth"
wrote:

there is no way to show the subtlety of the effect on
a monitor.

--Jon Mided



February 10, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

.... this must be why we talk about it so
much! ...

regards,
--le

  #15  
Old February 10th 06, 05:22 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

I received this from Jon Mided at digitaltruth.com:

... my own test results show a pronounced improvement in tonal
separation which appears equivalent to between half and one full
grade reduction in contrast; however, the highlights and shadows
appear as if no loss of contrast has occurred.


To settle the original question: "What does 'Improved Midtone Separation
mean'?" -- it seems it does indeed mean _lower_ contrast. Even though
I agree with J-D that greater tone separation should mean greater contrast.

I'm a photographer first and foremost, and not a scientist, but I ran
multiple side-by-side print tests and the results are clear.


There are some of us who will only believe a sensitometeric test stand
and densitometer results and those who rely on subjective impressions.
Myself, if I can't measure it then it isn't there -- an engineering
attitude, but do you want to drive over a bridge that is only supported
by belief?

From Jon's description it would appear a claim is made for an H&D
curve that tends to be 'chair shaped': a lowering of mid-tone contrast
while high and low tones are left at normal contrast.

It would seem that two contact prints through a step tablet and a
few minutes at the densitometer would show what is happening.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
  #16  
Old February 10th 06, 05:26 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote
On 10 Feb 2006 07:03:18 -0800, "Digitaltruth" wrote:
there is no way to show the subtlety of the effect on
a monitor.

... this must be why we talk about it so much! ...


"Oh! let us never, never doubt what nobody is sure about!"
Hilaire Belloc

"Only issues that can't be settled are worth talking about."
Me

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
  #17  
Old February 10th 06, 05:36 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer


Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
I received this from Jon Mided at digitaltruth.com:

... my own test results show a pronounced improvement in tonal
separation which appears equivalent to between half and one full
grade reduction in contrast; however, the highlights and shadows
appear as if no loss of contrast has occurred.


To settle the original question: "What does 'Improved Midtone Separation
mean'?" -- it seems it does indeed mean _lower_ contrast. Even though
I agree with J-D that greater tone separation should mean greater contrast.


Of course. The word 'greater separation' means 'farther apart'. Two
points on a steep slope are farther apart than the same points on a
shallow slope. The only way this stuff could offer 'Improved Midtone
Separation' would be if it modifies the H&D curve by some chemical
means, such as adding bromide and omitting hydroquinone.

I'm a photographer first and foremost, and not a scientist, but I ran
multiple side-by-side print tests and the results are clear.


There are some of us who will only believe a sensitometeric test stand
and densitometer results and those who rely on subjective impressions.
Myself, if I can't measure it then it isn't there -- an engineering
attitude, but do you want to drive over a bridge that is only supported
by belief?


Nope.


From Jon's description it would appear a claim is made for an H&D
curve that tends to be 'chair shaped': a lowering of mid-tone contrast
while high and low tones are left at normal contrast.


That would not give Improved Midtone Separation at all, but Worsened
Midtone Separation.


It would seem that two contact prints through a step tablet and a
few minutes at the densitometer would show what is happening.


Yup.


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm


  #18  
Old February 10th 06, 11:31 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

I think most of the analysis here is correct. Sensitometry will show
some loss of density, but not to a point where it appears less than a
full black on visual inspection. The developer is based on traditional
ingredients and cannot perform miracles, but everyone who has used it
is impressed by the final image quality and remarks on what appears as
improved tonal separation.

  #19  
Old February 11th 06, 01:26 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

"Digitaltruth" wrote

I think most of the analysis here is correct.


Well that's the nicest thing anyone has said about us in a long time...

Sensitometry will show some loss of density, but not to a point
where it appears less than a full black on visual inspection.


If there is detail in the shadows you have to stay well away from DMax.
A DMax of 2.6+ isn't hard to get, but anything from 1.9 to 2.6 is invisible
in the print unless you view it by transmitted light or with an arc lamp.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
  #20  
Old February 11th 06, 05:33 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Print So Fine" paper developer

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:26:27 GMT, "Nicholas
O. Lindan" wrote:

unless you view it by transmitted light or with an arc lamp.



February 11, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Or direct sunlight. Just look at a print in
direct sun if you want to see it without
sympathy.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net:
www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
D-max and paper developer Jan T In The Darkroom 13 January 3rd 06 11:09 PM
FA: Two unopened boxes of Photographers' Formulary Paper Developer #120 Hugh Lyon-Sach Darkroom Equipment For Sale 0 June 23rd 05 03:50 AM
Divided Developer for paper LR Kalajainen In The Darkroom 0 December 17th 04 04:46 PM
Phenidon-base paper developer ATIPPETT In The Darkroom 21 September 30th 04 08:33 PM
pyro plus paper developer fnovau In The Darkroom 5 May 23rd 04 04:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.