Thanks Walt
I can see the point of changing the developer timing if you have a
whole roll at one lighting level, but I rarely do. At least now I
shall not feel guilty the next time I see the choice of densities on a
developing chart ;-)
As for the "pre-wet" (exactly: and how can you "pre-visualise" either,
surely visualise would have done the same job?) I shall continue to do
it because that strangely coloured liquid is all the bad composition
and lighting being washed away ... ;-)
Cheers
Chris
On 11 Apr 2005, at 17:23, Walt Wayman wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I have an answer for both questions, just as I always answer every
> question on the quiz show Jeopardy. Mind you, though, that I'm not
> saying all the answers are correct, either there or here.
>
> As for the contrast thing, it's just my way of following the old
> procedure that if a scene is excessively contrasty, like with direct
> midday sun and so forth, then over-exposure and under-development will
> lower the contrast. Conversely, if the lighting is really flat and
> one wants to kick the contrast up a notch, then the procedure is to
> underexpose and overdevelop. When scenes of both sorts are on a
> single roll, of course, you just have to middle it and go with normal
> development. However, when shooting 120 film, particularly 6x9cm when
> there's only eight shots per roll, they may often all be taken under
> the same lighting conditions, so a little fiddling with development
> times can be quite advantageous.
>
> Now about the prewet, which is a really silly term because you can't
> really pre-do anything, so I'll just call it the first water bath. (I
> mean, I see directions that call for preheating the oven. Excuse me,
> but isn't that really just heating the ****ing oven?) Anyway, I'm
> obviously pussyfooting around and avoiding the question of why to do
> it. I know I once knew, but now I've forgotten. All I can say is
> that's what the J&C directions say to do.
>
> I wish I could authoritatively tell you that it dissolves and removes
> the antidefractional postextemporal and defuzzificational coatings so
> the developer can reach the previously hermetically sealed and
> renegade-proton shielded emulsion and go to work immediately, but that
> would not be really truthful. Or maybe it would be and I just can't
> remember. I do know, however, that it does something, because the
> water comes out looking like Kool-Aid. I'm still not sure what flavor
> it is, though the grandkids don't seem to like it much. :-)
>
> Walt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|