comments from the previous article system:
By pentaxuser - 07:22 PM, 08-28-2005 Rating: None
More a questio than a comment. Would this work for individual negatives that have high contrast due to the light/shadows at time of the exposure? I have some negs which are very contrasty and almost unprintable without complex dodging but contained in a set of negs which includes others which are probably more contrasty than ideal but still printable. Specifically one neg is of two figures( my wife and a female friend in a beach shelter, one of whom is in total shadow and the other in bright sunlight. I had followed the film instructions on development time and while this was probably too long it was not disastrous except for this neg. In other words is this an alternative to contrast reduction masking which seems to be very involved by comparison and for which I probably lack the skill and equipment. RA4 blix sounds much more straightforward but would it work in my circumstances which wasn't overdevelopment as described in the article.
Does the RA4 blix used retain its potency for re-use as RA4 blix or should the amount used be discarded. Presumably if it was only one or two negs then a small quantity only is required and small containers such as small ice-cream containers could be used. I take it the action of the blix is stopped by washingand the reduction is never fast enough to go too far before you can stop it?
However if the reduction is overdone, is there a reversal process?
If it resulted in soft prints but showing detail I would not be overly concerned about that as the principal viewer, my wife, seems to prefer prints which I suspect are soft by most APUG members standards.
For what it is worth I believe that most of the public favour soft light prints with lots of shades of grey at the expense of brilliant whites and blacks. All the prints for sale in my local photography shop seem to be of this kind and clearly sell well.
