SLIMT and Why You Should Be Using It

[2F/2F]

It's mainly due to the extremely low dilutions used for the bleach bath and the need to balance lifetime of solution against strength of solution. In addition precision becomes another matter.



You could do this - provided you can be very precise. I'd wager to say it's easier to be precise with diluting a 100g mix to something smaller, but yes technically you transfer the need for precision to the 2nd or 3rd mix at that point. It's also convenient to keep the 10% solution around which is easy to make the intermediate mixes from but has a very long lifetime. The reason the working bath is needed when one is going from a 10% stock is that you'd have to measure 0.01ml per 1000ml of water to go from stock->tray bath. Not exactly easy. However, since the variances in precision are easy to work around just by initial test time/dilution it's better to grab 5-10ml from the working stock and blend with 500-1000ml of tray water. One will figure out pretty quick what they'll need even if they 10ml they pulled from the stock bath (to make the working) was a little off.

In practice the stock bath is a one-time thing that you dilute from at the beginning of each session and put away. Keep the working in a 1L pyrex glass and then just pull a tsp from it and mix in a tray with 500ml of water for each print to be bleached. Dump and repeat for each print needing it. You'll only ever have 1 solution out that's not in a tray. The final one-shot mix is always in the tray.



No. #4 and exposure is setting the high tone contrast and overall level. As I previously mentioned I didn't go nuts trying to achieve a perfect print - just enough to demonstrate where SLIMT can take a complete over-contrast situation to.

[photo example removed]

No Selenium toning has been done in any of these - and that would definitely help solidify shadows in a beneficial direction. The above print I feel to be pretty acceptable for something that added 1-2 mins of additional time to the process without *any* local dodging/burning/split-grading/etc. - also considering the disadvantageous neg/scene/paper grade.



It doesn't have many disadvantages is what I'm saying. The example I'm pointing out is a pathological combination of wrong negative for the wrong grade of paper combined with wrong film type for the light at hand. See what I'm saying? That print is a guaranteed fight and SLIMT takes less time to get an acceptable print as opposed to heavy locals / screwing around of other nature. It also allows one to use contrast grade to determine upper-mid/highlight contrast and a bleach bath to decrease shadow contrast to bring the details back out. Even with split-grading this would be a global pain in the ass to do.



Say what? Post some of your own stuff before you start calling me out, partner. The final print *is* acceptable enough without local modifications involved. Asking me to "improve my printing skills" for a test demonstrating a particularly hard combo is below the belt and particularly weak coming from someone who talks large but shows little. It's a random negative from a shot of friends, dude. It's not a group-portrait job where I can set the time/place and have a conversation with the Sun beforehand.



Apparently you didn't read the original post nor the articles. You mix one stock solution and that's all that is kept. You use any old tray lying around. Are you telling me you have 4 trays in the darkroom period and can't be bothered to use an additional tray (any tray) for this? Ridiculous. As I said, additional time is 1-2 minutes depending on how much you want to bleach. If you can't be bothered printing all of those "hard negatives," because they're below your standards, then don't.

Funny thread - goes down the exact same road as the other Kachel thread went. If you choose to not use the technique and call it BS, then it's completely your loss - not mine. Pot-Ferri isn't going anywhere and it's a very useful tool in the darkroom for both this purpose and traditional bleaching use. A particular favorite of Eugene Smith.

Please relax, and read what I really wrote. I said I would use the technique if needed. I did not "call you out" on anything. What I said that made you think I was "calling you out" was simply the point that one should not just shoot away with no regard to lighting, and then expect a darkroom trick to make everything ok. I said that based on the example posted, this seems like a bailout technique that is not without its compromises. I said that it is not necessarily something that I feel I "should be using." I said that there are ways to handle high contrast that do not require this process, and that I would rather do them than use this process. That hardly deserves your response. However, as the great movie line goes, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

 

[fotch]

Interesting read, totally new info to me. Will reread again to understand better. Cannot say I have had a need for it but maybe ignorance is bliss.

 

[davidkachel]

Interesting read, totally new info to me...

Oddly, much of it is totally new info for me too!

 

[eclarke]

In the right place, this is really a great method and is a printing skill. It's a tool and we humans are considered to be advanced because we can use lots of tools, I use it when it's needed and am glad I learned it. To the critics, be honest, dodging, burning and masking don't always work either..EC

 

[Reinhold]

SLIMT works beautifully, If I remember to use it...

A typical scenario:
I'm printing a few negatives of varying contrast and difficulty...
One negative is tricky...
I change contrast filters, I change papers...
I dodge here, I burn there. Maybe I need a contrast mask. Fuss, fuss, fuss...
A half a dozen sheets of paper later, I get a print that's (sorta) nice...
It's late, I'm tired, I'm done for the night...

Next day I remember that I should've used SLIMT instead of wasting time and materials chasing a less effective solution to the problem. Grrrrrrr.

Try it, you'll be impressed.

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[john_s]

Perhaps some members here are so good at exposing that they don't have such problematic negatives. However, I do have some. And I will definitely give this technique a try.

 

[df cardwell]

SLIMT (paper & film) are related TECHNIQUE, not magic pixie dust,
so we can learn to use them as part of our Visualisation of the Image.

It is not so much a remedy, or emergency post-production, but a creative tool...
to get it right the first time without pointless mucking around.

It's good to be talking about it again. For roll film shooters, we can confidently mix scenes; we can suit the development to a normal negative, and let SLIMT deal with 'over-scaled' scenes whose highlights won't fit onto the paper. As long as we know how to expose for a scene, from very simple testing, we can shoot with confidence.

 

[2F/2F]

It sounds immensely useful for printing other peoples' negatives, which is something I quite enjoy doing (especially old estate sale negs), but which is often quite frustrating, as they are mostly shot by non-technically-developed photographers. I have only come across one box of negatives that were truly excellent quality, as far as composition, exposure, and the like. (All were shot with the very same Super Technika III that I now own.) Most have horrid exposures and horrid contrast. I will first try this technique with some of them. There is also one of my own pix that comes to mind for a trial. It was, in fact, the first photographic print I ever made.

 

[clayne]

Someone with more photograph science might be able to chime in, and in no way is it necessary for actually using SLIMT, but exactly why does pot-ferri attack more densely exposed silver when used pre-development, but reverse it's behavior when used post-development?

 

[Ian Grant]

Someone with more photograph science might be able to chime in, and in no way is it necessary for actually using SLIMT, but exactly why does pot-ferri attack more densely exposed silver when used pre-development, but reverse it's behavior when used post-development?

The ferricyanide is acting on all the silver halides in the unprocessed paper not just the exposed development centres holding the latent image charge.

During development the each silver halide molecule that has the latent charge converts further silver halide molecules in the same silver halide crystal into silver, rather simplistically put. There's a Kodak film posted on APUG that explains it well, & plenty of books that explain the exposure, latent image development process.

It's a mistake to think that the ferricyanide is bleaching the latent image, it isn't. In practice you can treat, wash &bdry the paper first before exposure and still get the same effects.

If the Ferricyanide was bleaching the latent image then the highlights would be affected (visually) far more than the shadows just like Farmers reducer which is proportional.

Instead converting the silver halides to silver ferricyanide complexes is affecting the kinetics of the development in each silver crystal which will have a greater effect where there's more exposure.

Ian

 

[archer]

The first time I used SLIMT was as a result of an equipment failure and after all the other techniques were less than successful, I gave it a try. It was so easy and the results, after experimenting a little, were fantastic. It saved a very important commission and was simplicity personified. I hope I never have to use it but failures occur and accidents happen and it is great to have this simple tool to use when nothing else will do and the ability to use the technique with color or black and white, print or film, makes it perhaps the most versatile tool in the toolbox.
Denise Libby

 

[clayne]

If there's one thing I definitely enjoy about SLIMT is it's ability to globally raise the bottom while leaving upper-midtone and highlight snap present and set by the paper. Any other "normal" method actually requires more work to approach the same goal. I'm sure I'm not alone in this but I don't particularly enjoy long sequences of utility burns just to bring highlights back in line when shadows can't be sacrificed. If I'm doing it for a creative reason, that's different - but usually it's to fit the range of the paper.

The people shooting perfect negatives all day and night on sheet film or in low contrast light probably don't care, but anyone shooting roll film will benefit from this technique.

 

[Ian Grant]

Clayne, I shoot in contrasty conditions here by the Aegean on roll film with no problems, my negatives are always easy to print, you may need to look at your overall film speed/developer combination.

The example image you gave of Neopan 400 in Rodinal at 1:25 is going to give high contrast negatives, it would do so even if shot on an average overcast day in the UK which is always relatively low contrast lighting. Techniques like SLIMPT or using Framers reducer on the negative which would also help are there for emergency use as Denise Libby points out, if you have to use them regularly then look at you overall exposure/development technique.

Ian

 

[clayne]

Clayne, I shoot in contrasty conditions here by the Aegean on roll film with no problems, my negatives are always easy to print, you may need to look at your overall film speed/developer combination.

The example image you gave of Neopan 400 in Rodinal at 1:25 is going to give high contrast negatives, it would do so even if shot on an average overcast day in the UK which is always relatively low contrast lighting. Techniques like SLIMPT or using Framers reducer on the negative which would also help are there for emergency use as Denise Libby points out, if you have to use them regularly then look at you overall exposure/development technique.

Ian

Ian, I don't believe you and I shoot the same type of material or with the same methodology/approach (do you even use 135?) but nobody is denying that the negative/light combo chosen isn't ideal. It definitely wasn't. That's why I chose it to show as an example.

I think the point myself and some others are trying to make is SLIMT can be used as both a utility tool and a creative tool - much like anything else.

Pot-ferri itself is a rather creative tool even when used conventionally.

 

[davidkachel]

The ferricyanide is acting on all the silver halides in the unprocessed paper not just the exposed development centres holding the latent image charge.

It's a mistake to think that the ferricyanide is bleaching the latent image, it isn't. In practice you can treat, wash &bdry the paper first before exposure and still get the same effects.

Ian

Interesting. Mees & James (Theory of the Photographic Process, 1955) certainly thought the latent image was being bleached. Are you aware of subsequent research with which I am not familiar? I have read EVERY edition of Mees & James, and virtually every publicly distributed technical photographic tome of significance from 1850 thru the mid 1980s. I have seen no references to your theory. Perhaps it is something new?

I don't suppose it matters because the effect is there regardless, but can you provide any references for your contention? Please post quotes and sources. Have you personally tried bleaching unexposed paper and then exposing and processing it?

If you are correct this provides an interesting new twist and may actually lead to additional flexibility in SLIMT techniques. You don't actually say what you contend the Pot Ferr is doing to the silver halide crystal. What do you believe is taking place? (Again, quoted references please.)

And just for the record (for everyone), I published the paper on SLIMT use with B&W papers almost as an afterthought. I am surprised everyone is so focused on this particular SLIMT as I always considered it one of the least interesting. It is incredibly effective, but should be unnecessary much of the time where SLIMT for B&W film should be used virtually on a daily basis. (And for those of you who contended that the same thing could be accomplished with other techniques, that supposition is not correct. Nothing else does what SLIMTs can do, otherwise why would I have wasted a decade working on what already existed?).

SLIMTs are so much more useful with B&W film as well as with color film and paper. In the same (maybe previous) issue where I announced SLIMTs, another researcher announced a brilliant new technique to INCREASE contrast in color paper. His technique was just as easy and effective as SLIMTs. Between us we invented the holy grail of color Neg-Pos photography: variable contrast for color Neg-Pos paper that actually had a range much longer than VC papers for B&W. We might as well have offered color photographers a nasty venereal disease. To my knowledge neither technique was ever adopted by any color photographer anywhere.

(This last is a general statement NOT aimed specifically at Mr. Grant.) A rather nasty result of the advent of the internet forum is that voice is given to those whose only interest in life is to attack the work and even the lives of others. As in the previous thread on SLIMTs (where all I wanted to do was pass the baton for SLIMT research, but some saw it as an opportunity to criticize SLIMTs, ignoring the fact that SLIMTs already had a quarter century long track record of success) some have felt it their duty to jump in and criticize that which they quite obviously do not understand and have not even read (there must be a lot of Congressmen here). I no longer have any emotional investment in SLIMT and therefore really don't care. But Christopher Layne made a post in which he plainly wanted to share his excitement over something he had "discovered", only to be pissed on by those who can't stand to see anyone happy. He showed examples that he quite adequately explained were designed to show the extremes of which SLIMTs were capable, NOT his photographic prowess. But some people nonetheless insisted on pretending they did not understand this premise so they could feel at liberty to criticize his photographic skills!

Allow me to give you all a peek behind the curtain so that you can see exactly what it is that this kind of rudeness and disrespect costs the photographic community, and so that the Admins here might be tempted to exercise the Ban button with greater regularity:

Remember that fellow I mentioned whose absolute genius provided the other half of a VC system for color paper? I am certain he had more brilliance to share, but the public indifference to his technique resulted in his never publishing another article, ever again. What do you suppose photographers lost forever as a result of snubbing this man? My guess is a great deal.

Or what about a more immediate example? How quick do you suppose Mr. Layne is going to be to share his next "discovery" on this forum? What if he invents a technique or two of his own? How eager do you think he will be to mention it to others?

At the moment I am studying a whole fistful of techniques for use in Photoshop that have improved my prints by at least one full order of magnitude. I have been staring in disbelief for over a week at my first stunning print made with these techniques. The fellow who came up with these techniques is bitter and disillusioned. (Can you guess why?) I have tried to convince him to publish them in what used to be D&CCT, but to no avail. (I have kept from him the reality of the disappointment he would experience, post-publicaiton.) He has not yet made the final decision to withdraw and forever keep his revolutionary techniques to himself but I imagine if he were to read this thread, he would come to that decision in an instant.

Though I have sworn off any more invention while I use the few years remaining to me for making photographs, if I were to somehow stumble on a new technique I would probably give consideration to keeping it to myself. Most likely I would decide to share it in the end, but one thing is absolutely certain... I would NOT announce it here! Why?

You may think I would not publish it here because my feelings have been hurt and I am offended. You would be wrong. Remember, I no longer care, and blowhards and know-it-alls don't bother me any more (APUG only has a few of them, though they are certainly outspoken). No. If I had such an invention to announce again, I would not do it here simply because it would be pointless to do so. Such an announcement would be so drowned out by the aforementioned blowhards and know-it-alls that it would be inaccessible in a matter of hours, just as my previous attempt to pass the research baton was totally drowned out, and by the way, fruitless as a result.

May I humbly suggest that some on APUG need to follow the advice inherent in a quote, the source for which I have long ago forgotten: "I already know what I have to say. I would like to know what you have to say!"

 

[davidkachel]

Mr Grant,

This remark is aimed precisely at you.
Before you presume to tell people what SLIMTs are for, allow me to tell you, as the inventor of SLIMTs, that YOU do not know what they are for and perhaps you should stop giving advice about something which you plainly do not understand. SLIMTs are NOT for emergencies and they ARE for regular use.
Now go ahead. Tell ME I don't know what SLIMTs are for!

 

[hrst]

I hope your post will awaken some people!

Even if the situation is not that bad as it could be..... It could be much better. People are not so motivated to find new things, not even to learn basics. Most we get are specific questions about zone system --- which is just a tool for people who already should understand the basics very well, and, on the top of all, is nothing but the basics.

One thing I really like on APUG is the "Silver Gelatin based emulsion making & coating" forum. I find myself very comfortable there. There are various true experimenters and no nasty atmosphere at all.

 

[Ian Grant]

David, I vaguely remember your original articles, someone used to pass on Darkroom & Creative Camera Technique, quite a rare magazine at that time in the UK, or it may have been on the internet a year or so later but it re-awoke memories of trying the Sterry process in the 70's and then trying the same process with Ferricyanide, both worked successfully in reducing paper contrast the Dichromate by 2 grades, ferricyanide a bit less.

But when I read the articles I tried the process with dilute Ferricyanide as you suggested and yes the process works, However maybe because I only work with warm tone chloro-bromide papers which have greater flexibility using normal controls (than bromide papers) I've never found a need to use the process, it's very easy to take a graded WT paper up or down a grade. That doesn't mean that your process doesn't work.

Because the original Sterry process works by pre-bathing the paper or film prior to exposure there's no Latent image bleaching taking place. My books are mainly European, I have Mees book somewhere but probably the version he wrote at Wratten & Wainright before he defected to the US with Sheppard & joined Kodak

Either way, pre soak or after exposure, the bleach is not destroying the latent image. It's worth looking at how a Ferricyanide/Bromide bleach and subsequent Sepia toning is affected by the ratio of Ferricyanide to Bromide. With less bromide the tones are warmer and less dense and contrast is lower, this is the same effect as SLIMT, so what you are controlling is the balance of Silver Ferricyanide complexes to Silver bromide.

Just like the Sterry effect the bleach with a Sepia toner is effectively prior to re-exposure or rather chemical fogging.

I must apologise to Clayne for jumping on him, but his pre-SLIMT image is just not the right one to use as a comparison, clearly there's a huge amount of detail in the negative and many of us could get a good print from it fairly easily.

Ian

 

[davidkachel]

I am speechless!

 

[Ian Grant]

I am speechless!

So what do you disagree with ?

I totally agree your process works. So am I wrong ?

The analogy to Ferricyanide/Bromide bleaches is extremely valid as it's the same effects happening although in a completely different context.

Where I think really needs your expansion is SLIMT's not a necessarily a straight effect, as you say in your article(s), and can have a greater effect with highlights or shadows depending on the emulsion involved. This is what Clayne was claiming but his images unfortunately don't substantiate this because he's left out a best possible straight print for comparison.

This is where good comparative images are vital, and you've done the work. So why not post an updated article with images on APUG ?

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

I don't know if this thread is providing any more info than the last one.

What I would like to see is a thread or article comparing, for example, printing SLIMT, Selectrol Developer (or clone), and Multigrade paper, in terms of expense, ease of use, repeatability, availability of supplies and range/shape of curves.

 

[2F/2F]

I don't know if this thread is providing any more info than the last one.

What I would like to see is a thread or article comparing, for example, printing SLIMT, Selectrol Developer (or clone), and Multigrade paper, in terms of expense, ease of use, repeatability, availability of supplies and range/shape of curves.

ditto

 

[2F/2F]

Interesting. Mees & James (Theory of the Photographic Process, 1955) certainly thought the latent image was being bleached. Are you aware of subsequent research with which I am not familiar? I have read EVERY edition of Mees & James, and virtually every publicly distributed technical photographic tome of significance from 1850 thru the mid 1980s. I have seen no references to your theory. Perhaps it is something new?

I don't suppose it matters because the effect is there regardless, but can you provide any references for your contention? Please post quotes and sources. Have you personally tried bleaching unexposed paper and then exposing and processing it?

If you are correct this provides an interesting new twist and may actually lead to additional flexibility in SLIMT techniques. You don't actually say what you contend the Pot Ferr is doing to the silver halide crystal. What do you believe is taking place? (Again, quoted references please.)

And just for the record (for everyone), I published the paper on SLIMT use with B&W papers almost as an afterthought. I am surprised everyone is so focused on this particular SLIMT as I always considered it one of the least interesting. It is incredibly effective, but should be unnecessary much of the time where SLIMT for B&W film should be used virtually on a daily basis. (And for those of you who contended that the same thing could be accomplished with other techniques, that supposition is not correct. Nothing else does what SLIMTs can do, otherwise why would I have wasted a decade working on what already existed?).

SLIMTs are so much more useful with B&W film as well as with color film and paper. In the same (maybe previous) issue where I announced SLIMTs, another researcher announced a brilliant new technique to INCREASE contrast in color paper. His technique was just as easy and effective as SLIMTs. Between us we invented the holy grail of color Neg-Pos photography: variable contrast for color Neg-Pos paper that actually had a range much longer than VC papers for B&W. We might as well have offered color photographers a nasty venereal disease. To my knowledge neither technique was ever adopted by any color photographer anywhere.

(This last is a general statement NOT aimed specifically at Mr. Grant.) A rather nasty result of the advent of the internet forum is that voice is given to those whose only interest in life is to attack the work and even the lives of others. As in the previous thread on SLIMTs (where all I wanted to do was pass the baton for SLIMT research, but some saw it as an opportunity to criticize SLIMTs, ignoring the fact that SLIMTs already had a quarter century long track record of success) some have felt it their duty to jump in and criticize that which they quite obviously do not understand and have not even read (there must be a lot of Congressmen here). I no longer have any emotional investment in SLIMT and therefore really don't care. But Christopher Layne made a post in which he plainly wanted to share his excitement over something he had "discovered", only to be pissed on by those who can't stand to see anyone happy. He showed examples that he quite adequately explained were designed to show the extremes of which SLIMTs were capable, NOT his photographic prowess. But some people nonetheless insisted on pretending they did not understand this premise so they could feel at liberty to criticize his photographic skills!

Allow me to give you all a peek behind the curtain so that you can see exactly what it is that this kind of rudeness and disrespect costs the photographic community, and so that the Admins here might be tempted to exercise the Ban button with greater regularity:

Remember that fellow I mentioned whose absolute genius provided the other half of a VC system for color paper? I am certain he had more brilliance to share, but the public indifference to his technique resulted in his never publishing another article, ever again. What do you suppose photographers lost forever as a result of snubbing this man? My guess is a great deal.

Or what about a more immediate example? How quick do you suppose Mr. Layne is going to be to share his next "discovery" on this forum? What if he invents a technique or two of his own? How eager do you think he will be to mention it to others?

At the moment I am studying a whole fistful of techniques for use in Photoshop that have improved my prints by at least one full order of magnitude. I have been staring in disbelief for over a week at my first stunning print made with these techniques. The fellow who came up with these techniques is bitter and disillusioned. (Can you guess why?) I have tried to convince him to publish them in what used to be D&CCT, but to no avail. (I have kept from him the reality of the disappointment he would experience, post-publicaiton.) He has not yet made the final decision to withdraw and forever keep his revolutionary techniques to himself but I imagine if he were to read this thread, he would come to that decision in an instant.

Though I have sworn off any more invention while I use the few years remaining to me for making photographs, if I were to somehow stumble on a new technique I would probably give consideration to keeping it to myself. Most likely I would decide to share it in the end, but one thing is absolutely certain... I would NOT announce it here! Why?

You may think I would not publish it here because my feelings have been hurt and I am offended. You would be wrong. Remember, I no longer care, and blowhards and know-it-alls don't bother me any more (APUG only has a few of them, though they are certainly outspoken). No. If I had such an invention to announce again, I would not do it here simply because it would be pointless to do so. Such an announcement would be so drowned out by the aforementioned blowhards and know-it-alls that it would be inaccessible in a matter of hours, just as my previous attempt to pass the research baton was totally drowned out, and by the way, fruitless as a result.

May I humbly suggest that some on APUG need to follow the advice inherent in a quote, the source for which I have long ago forgotten: "I already know what I have to say. I would like to know what you have to say!"

Relax. My only real problem with the post was the PO's rather bold statement that we "should be using it," and that this was not supported by the examples shown. As I said, it sounds interesting, and I will try it. However, I don't really ever print anything where I feel I cannot get the print that I want. Old negs, maybe, or other peoples' negs...but hardly anything else. I do just fine with what I am doing now, for the most part.

Now for color, I am way more interested, with extremely tedious masking being the only way I know of to alter contrast once the printing stage has been reached. As for why those techniques never took off with color paper, it is likely because so few people do their own color printing, and those who do are dealing with enough already, and don't want to deal with anything else. Additionally, it is my not so humble opinion that most people would not have the eye or the skill to employ them. Call me critical, but I believe I am correct nonetheless, having worked first hand with many, many color photographers (probably over 200) in the past few years. Another reason is that most people probably process color in Kreonite-type processors, which do not allow for alterations of the standard process, such as SLIMT or this other technique. I don't personally know anyone who does RA processing at home. They all use a Kreonite. In short, most people are not very skilled, most people are lazy, and/or most people don't have the facilities/equipment to do it. I am sure a couple of truly skilled color printers use these techniques all the time. I sure as heck want to learn both of them, especially with the extreme lack of variety in color enlarging papers now! I have not printed color in some time, as I have been really busy with b/w, work, other obligations and what have you, but I just got the setup to do it at home in drums, so I am game. IHMO, this VC color bit is the most useful bit of info in the entire thread thus far, and I thank you for sharing it. Do you have any way to lead us to the exact articles of which you speak?

As for people who won't publish because their skin isn't thick enough to deal with the criticism of the unwashed masses, FUGGEM!! GET OVER IT. In the same way it is other peoples' loss if they want to poo-poo on your publications, it is the writer's loss if he or she lets the critics affect the work or its publication. Grow some cajones and quit caring what other people think or do. PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS. So the world goes. I can fully understand the urge to be a recluse and a loner, but IMO it is even more important to just say what you feel like saying, regardless of how it is received. Is it worth it if they reach just one person, even if everyone else tells them they are an idiot? I think it is...and obviously you have, with as many practitioners of SLIMT as we have on this here Internet group.

 

[davidkachel]

ic-racer

Funny how some things just don't gel for years. Your post caused me to realize, in hindsight, that my choice of title for that particular SLIMT paper was a poor one. It immediately leads people to invalid conclusions. I was trying to be clever and it backfired.

Though SLIMT is effective as a VC system for graded papers, that is its basest use. I certainly never used it that way. The best use of SLIMT on B&W graded, OR multigrade papers for that matter, is printing on grade 4 or 5 paper resulting in high-contrast in the highlights and midtones while achieving contrast down to as low as grade 000 in the shadows. THIS is what SLIMT does best with B&W paper and is the reason that comparing SLIMT to Selectrol or MG papers makes no more sense than comparing your television set to your toaster. What SLIMTs do, nothing else can even approach.

That aside, allow me to add extra encouragement for all of you to try SLIMTs with FILM! You're all still in the lobby trying yesterday's catered hors d'oeuvres oblivious to the fact that on the other side of the door is a five star restaurant eager to serve you.

 

[2F/2F]

Here's a 5ml/500ml SLIMT bath with 1min duration as opposed to 2min (which was shown above):

Can you show us an example where the high tones on the SLIMTified print match the high tones on the print done with a standard process? Every SLIMT example so far has been much lighter overall, not just in the darker areas. It would also be good to have examples with standard printing manipulations applied (changes in contrast filter or grade of paper, changes in developer, burning and dodging, etc.)

The point is, if you are going to tell us all that we "should be" doing something, then really let us know why. As far as I can see from the examples posted, you get a lower contrast print, but also a much lighter print over all. The one picture that would best illustrate the technique is not shown, so how can you expect anything but a lukewarm reception at best? This is the aforementioned picture in which the high tones on the standard-processed print and the high tones on the SLIMTified print match.