18 stop Subject Brightness Range on Tmax400

[SW Rick]

Sandy,

with the diluted Diafine, do you then use it on a "one-shot" basis, or can you reuse it?

Thanks for the suggestion!

Rick

[Steve Gledhill]

Archival inkjet prints ?

Inkjet prints free of metamerism ?

Inkjet prints free of out-gassing ?

Ken,

I didn’t intend for my post to go beyond the creation of the image into the medium used for displaying an image and into the matters you’ve just raised. Clearly what you’ve alluded to are very important matters indeed. But, for me personally (that is the basis of my post), I am more concerned about the here and now rather than the long term life of any of my images. For me the ‘here and now’ is about the current enjoyment of an image whether it’s displayed on the web or printed. And for me my current means of display – ink prints and the web – satisfy my requirements. My ink prints display next to no metamerism, next to no gloss differential, are likely to last for my lifetime and a good deal longer. So, for me, that’s good enough to be able to show my work to others and to feel a sense of pride and achievement. I know full well that for others, for personal, aesthetic or commercial reasons, that’s not enough.

[Steve Gledhill]

You are absolutely correct, a hybrid approach is a very different tool and can do things that are fundamentally impossible to achieve with physical tools. The flip side is that the 'entirely darkroom' approach itself can produce objects that are fundamentally impossible to achieve with digital. There is no news here. That there exists some thing that a medium cannot do, is not an automatic demerit, else nobody would use any media at all; all media have things they cannot do. Media are media and their qualities are their own.

BetterSense talks good sense. As long as you don't think I was attempting to "demerit" any other process. So, as you say - "no news here". As in my response to Ken, I'm speaking of my own experience. Just for the record, I see fabulous work from the darkrooms of others and marvel at their techniques that I could never master despite years of trying.

[Doremus Scudder]

Steve,

Great work!

And, as to the digital vs. traditional darkroom debate... Looking at your work, done with the hybrid process, often gave me the eerie feeling that I was looking at something of mine that had slipped my mind.... with 100% wet darkroom techniques.

The techniques are just tools, with inherent limitations and advantages that need to be learned; it is one's vision that is most important.

Best

Doremus Scudder

[BetterSense]

with the diluted Diafine, do you then use it on a "one-shot" basis, or can you reuse it?

I've never done it myself, but the one person I know who diluted Diafine used it one-shot. To me it seems like a waste of Diafine since a liter of the stuff lasts me for years, but I suppose in the final analysis it's not terribly expensive afterall.

[sanking]

Sandy,

with the diluted Diafine, do you then use it on a "one-shot" basis, or can you reuse it?

Thanks for the suggestion!

Rick

Rick,

You can definitely re-use the diluted Diafine several times if you do so the same day or within a window of a few days. Whether the diluted solution will keep as well as the standard stock I can not say because I have not tried to use it that way. In any event it is fairly economical to use one-shot and discard considering the relatively small amount of solution that is used in rotary processing in tubes or drum.

Sandy King

[chris_4622]

Sandy,

Does Pyrocat HD have a compensating effect when used in Stand Development?

chris

[sanking]

Sandy,

Does Pyrocat HD have a compensating effect when used in Stand Development?

chris

Chris,

Only with very weak dilutions.

Sandy King

[Stephen Willard]

Steve, I notice that your PDF only showed 14 stops and not 18 stops as advertised. Maybe I was missing something when I looked at it.

I am curious, has anyone taken density readings of their film test strips and plotted a characteristic curve for your different developers and processing methods. It is one thing to get 14, 18 or 22 stops of dynamic range, but if the curve has a pronounced toe and shoulder, then perhaps the claims are really not what is actually happening. There is a big difference between a 18 stop straight line curve and 18 stop curve with exaggerated toes and shoulders. The form is much preferred because the clarity of detail in both the shadows and highlights is far superior.

I work with color negative film and the curves I get from the film and developer I use is almost a perfect straight line with a slight shoulder at Zones XIII and XIV. There are color negatives films I have tested that lack straight line curves and the difference are very apparent. The detail in the shadows and highlights look flat and dull compared to the film I am using. Of course, it is hard to see until you put both prints side by side and then it is amazing just how much more brilliant the detail is in both the shadows and highlight are with a straight line curve.

Curves in the b&w world that have noticeable toes and shoulders would exhibit different levels of contrast as you move along the curve, and thus, would make it difficult to match a paper contrast grade to the print. With curves that have noticeable toes and shoulders, the contrast at those points would be softer then in the mid tone sections. With a straight line curve, the contrast remains constant at all points of the curve, and thus, would be a better match for a paper contrast grade. Clearly, since I do work in b&w then my observations and opinions are just guesses.

Any responses would be appreciated.

[Brian Ellis]

You are absolutely correct, a hybrid approach is a very different tool and can do things that are fundamentally impossible to achieve with physical tools. The flip side is that the 'entirely darkroom' approach itself can produce objects that are fundamentally impossible to achieve with digital. There is no news here. That there exists some thing that a medium cannot do, is not an automatic demerit, else nobody would use any media at all; all media have things they cannot do. Media are media and their qualities are their own.

Just curious - when you say there are "objects" fundamentally impossible to achieve digitally that can be achieved in the darkroom, what do you have in mind? I ask because after about 15 years in a darkroom and about 10 printing digitally, I haven't found anything I did in a darkroom that can't be duplicated digitally (though my goal has never been to just duplicate what was done in a darkroom, my goal is to do better than that). But then I probably didn't do everything possible in a darkroom so I'm wondering what you're thinking of.