Harman positive paper and BW chrome

I got a couple of rolls of Efke 25 [135 format] shot at box speed processed as B&W slides at Dr5 last year. The 2 links below show a few samples from those rolls

http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_peek_in_my_world/tags/bwslide/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_peek_in_my_world/tags/efke25/

Overall, I found that the contrast range to be lower compared to normal B&W neg films [though no negative of the same scene to compare with in my case]. The scans are done at home with a cheapo scanner and then contrast boosted in Photoshop before uploading.

Cheers
Deb

2F/2F said:

Exactly what I am getting at. B/w negatives have a certain dynamic range (and a very wide one at that). How could making them into positives (via reversal processing) increase this?

My idea is that with a reversed b/w film frame, you must be seeing the same dynamic range you'd see on a negative film frame, and that just looks "mind blowing" because it is being seen as a positive right on the film itself. If this is not the case, I am curious to know why.

Click to expand...

I dont know about the dynamic range, but for me the images speaks a clear message, both the images on the homepage and my own (for example the dr5 dog image). when i compared the images i did not compare a negativ with a postive, I scaned and then converted the negativ into a postive (photoshop) and compared then.
Also, we make a huge simplification saying Chrome VS Negative, because we are not comparing that, we are comparing negative development VS DR5 development.

Just shoot a role and send them, or dont, its just another creative expression that exist out there, some might like it, some not. For me B/W development gives me a good negative which I both scan and work optical with, but when it comes to palladium and contact printing I get better result from a DR5 developed negative, and that is with my workflow, my UV source, my mixture of chemicals and the why i create the contact negative, it works for me but it might not work at all for another persons workflow/taste.

I am just amazed with the DR5 process and i think there process is like 19 baths or something.

Photo Engineer: do you have any insight when it comes to Chrome VS Negative and dynamic range?

cheers

sandholm said:

I dont know about the dynamic range, but for me the images speaks a clear message, both the images on the homepage and my own (for example the dr5 dog image). when i compared the images i did not compare a negativ with a postive, I scaned and then converted the negativ into a postive (photoshop) and compared then.
Also, we make a huge simplification saying Chrome VS Negative, because we are not comparing that, we are comparing negative development VS DR5 development.

Just shoot a role and send them, or dont, its just another creative expression that exist out there, some might like it, some not. For me B/W development gives me a good negative which I both scan and work optical with, but when it comes to palladium and contact printing I get better result from a DR5 developed negative, and that is with my workflow, my UV source, my mixture of chemicals and the why i create the contact negative, it works for me but it might not work at all for another persons workflow/taste.

I am just amazed with the DR5 process and i think there process is like 19 baths or something.

Photo Engineer: do you have any insight when it comes to Chrome VS Negative and dynamic range?

cheers

Click to expand...

I am not disputing the usefulness of b/w transparencies, or attempting to talk anybody out of using them. I am simply asking if the "huge dynamic range" that you claimed in your original post is actually any greater than the huge dynamic range that one normally gets on a b/w negative.

Let me think... a negative film is a low contrast medium, at least when processed as usual. Of course, it's an intermediate stage, so we combine it with a high contrast medium (paper) and have prints of "normal" contrast. The negative has huge dynamic range and it's able to hold detail throughout a wide exposure range, but keep in mind that it's a low contrast medium and it's capable of having a quite high, but finite maximum density. Now let's take the same film and process it in a way that makes positives intended for projection. Contrast has to be higher, compared to negatives. Otherwise, it will look ugly. Higher contrast also means that the same change in exposure will have a larger change in density, compared to a negative. But the useful density range (Dmax - Dmin) is finite. Honestly, I can't think how a bw positive can have more dynamic range than a negative.

But I would also expect a bw positive to have finer grain than a negative. A bw negative has progressively coarser grain from shadows to highlights. Grain increases with density. In the case of bw positives, it's the shadows that have more grain than the highlights. This could mean that fine details and textures can look "cleaner". This is also very good for those who scan film, for obvious reasons. But we don't discuss these subjects in this forum.

2F/2F said:

I am not disputing the usefulness of b/w transparencies, or attempting to talk anybody out of using them. I am simply asking if the "huge dynamic range" that you claimed in your original post is actually any greater than the huge dynamic range that one normally gets on a b/w negative.

Click to expand...

True, and as i pointed out in a later post that I might have used the term "dynamic range" wrong.
cheers

This Thread is typical as to why I dont post regularly on this forum.

If a dynamic range increase is too hard for you to fathom, why dont you send us a few rolls? Id be happy to run them for you as a test...

As I have offered this in the past, we will likely not see film. If you have questions regarding the technical side of dr5 id be happy to answer them. Give us a call or email us directly. Such topics have proven to be hostile on this forum.

dr5 is all that I claim it to be and I only provide the service, as a service to the photo community, take it or leave it.

As to the original post, a flat positive would have to be used to get a good result from this paper. The tests we have run from the efke paper have not been good.

regards

2F/2F said:

I didn't catch why a positive has more dynamic range than a negative on those pages. It is normal for a positive viewed directly to appear to have less grain and be sharper than a print from a negative.

Click to expand...