It cuts the density range in half. Contrast remains pretty much the same.Quote:
Stripping cuts down contrast.
Printable View
It cuts the density range in half. Contrast remains pretty much the same.Quote:
Stripping cuts down contrast.
I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Another way of putting it is that it's easier to realize shadow detail without everything beyond facial tones turning into solid paper white; without having to do insane fiddling with 'levels' or paper-grade filters and water-bath development. Unless you're printing with alternative methods, which is a different story.
This is nice. Very well done. Is this a scan of the negative or a print? I know it says scanned but I want to be sure and if it is a scan how will you print it because I'd like to see it. Love the Verito.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbogatko
Sigh -- it is a scan of the negative. Finances prevent a real dark room that can achieve actual darkness during the day. That and a day job.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
I actually have a Gum kit from photo-forumulary, but have only had the chance to gaze at it longingly....
One day. one day...
Hang in there. It is frustrating not having a darkroom. I make the best of my two bedroom apartment. That will make a nice print, I can tell. Congratulations.
A carbon print from Blue X-ray film shot at ISO 50 on the new 8x10. D-76 for 7 minutes. Hermagis Edioscop at F-8.
8x10 kodak csg, gundlach radar
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8...09926531_c.jpg
Scan-130328-0003www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
gotta get some x-ray film
i had no idea
why am i paying a lot for plain old film
great images!
Not for people who only print digitally, so nothing wrong with a scan.Quote:
It is frustrating not having a darkroom
8x10 csg, yellow-green XO filter (Kenko). Old Angulon 165mm.
Late evening (almost twilight)
@iso 50, developer in 1+100 Rodinal, 7.30m.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8259/8...33d50dd6_c.jpg
Scan-130331-0006www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr