Yes, I would like to ask all those long time LF shooters about something?
Looking back at your old negatives ( like pan film) doesn't the emulsion have a noticeable thickness, that is doesn't the old film tend to form a 3 dimensional characterisitic in the older film that isn't present in the thinner emulsions of today?
I agree with you but I am one of "those or them" who thinks that at certain times I can "see a print" when looking at or through a negative. I question how many negatives were overexposed in olden times, then developed to result in dense readable negatives, a three dimensional effect?
Bernie
That may be true but as mass usage of the 35mm format trend to thinner emulsion to compete with larger formats, I am considering that technology was applied to the paper emulsion as a cost effective means . . . If it was then part of the problems with print quality that made photography an art form may have been inadvertently lost to modern photography?Originally Posted by Clay Turtle
An solution might be (almost as simple as the cause) . . . multi-layer the print emulsion? Back in the day, we had various weights of B&W paper (like double weight) based on the paper weight may be we should have a similar system of weight based on the emulsion?
PS. The down side would be those digital print guy would want to get into the act with color. Of course I noted some post that there seems to be those having problems with enlarger prints? I wonder if they produced a layer range extended for b&w then layered another for normal exposure would work better? Besides as movie film used a protective coating then why not an extra layer of protective coating for archival prints?
Last edited by Clay Turtle; 21-Feb-2008 at 07:08. Reason: PS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks