If you are using a lightbox then it is a projected image, which has a greater range than a reflected image. Such a range may not even be seen in a print viewed in good light. So the comparison is not useful.
If you are using a lightbox then it is a projected image, which has a greater range than a reflected image. Such a range may not even be seen in a print viewed in good light. So the comparison is not useful.
I am with Sirius Glass on this: i make contact prints to actually see what is on the negative, not to evaluate my max black. Maximum back comes when doing a proper print en even then i think high lights and overal tonal range are more important.
It seems to me
That assumption is your problem.
It's not necessarily about being "hard core", John. Proper proofing will alert you to problems/changes in your development routine, and can also warn you about problems with equipment (shutter speed drifts, etc.). It is relatively quick to determine, and saves time in the long run.wow .. i guess one never knows what kind of a slacker they are
until they read how hard core people are about proofing their rolls of film..
i always figured it was to get a glimpse, not a gallery show piece ..
i always figured it was to get a glimpse, not a gallery show piece ..
You have made an errant fundamental assumption. That, fed into any reasoning process, will lead to errant conclusions. As such, the reasoning is not the problem; it is the primary assumption of the utility of the method that is the problem.I explained my reasoning, which part of it you think is not correct?
Under what circumstances would two parts of the same print with same tone look different under transmitted light?
Just saying that my assumption is not correct without disproving it does not add a lot to the conversation.
I am comparing apples to apples here. If both tones are Dmax, they should look the same, under whatever light.
The reverse of course is not true: two similar tones may look the same under sufficiently dim lighting conditions.
As I mentioned above, I have other ways to get a glimpse. If that is what you (and most people) do with your proofs, that's fine with me.
I am not framing my proofs. This thread is under the Exposure forum, because this was for me an experiment about learning something about my negatives (exposure and development).
This is true, however the reason for doing it means that reaching actual Dmax isn't really desired. What you're doing is working out standard printing parameters which will always show you the shadow detail when you look at your contact/proof prints but give you plenty of headroom for the highlights. The standard parameters/consistency is kind of the more important bit as it allows you to compare exposure and developing between different rolls.I stand by my statement that if the rebate are was really to reach Dmax, the fact that I was evaluating via a lightbox was not a mistake
Thanks John, it's probably time to do some proper film testing!
I wondered what the ezedpzed test was until I realised that in U.S. English the last letter of the alphabet is pronounced as "zee" and not as "zed"its the simple ezpz film test
have fun !
really ?No, I still have not idea what that test is ☹
But I am considering trying this: https://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html
Even though I will have to adapt it to 12 frames per roll as opposed to 37.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?