I agree. With constant exposure I should've arrived at a print that looks just like a straight 2.5 print.Thanks ercidan. I am now just curious as to what the explanation for your original observations in terms of contrast might be. You told us what you did and it posed a situation you did not expect which seems counter intuitive to what you thought should happen and I'd agree. You are rightly looking for an explanation and I am trying to harness a court of inquiry to ascertain an explanation which so far seems to be lacking. Indeed what useful information that has been given about your exposure system would seem to suggest that what you found you should not have found.
I hope that this doesn't "fizzle out" as some threads do with a kind of shoulder shrugging explanation that "it was just one of those things" It might be OK for Frank at the piano to say that when "its quarter to three, there's no one in the place 'cept you and me, so set 'em up Joe .... "
However your thread deserves more, even if it is the conclusion that something happened which remains unknown as the theory of VCCE means that unless there was an unknown gremlin which may forever remain a mystery, it should not have happened.
pentaxuser.
I agree. With constant exposure I should've arrived at a print that looks just like a straight 2.5 print.
Instead I get something that is slightly more contrasty.
Correct me if I am wrong, but given what I've learned in the thread so far, instead of a more contrasty print I should've gotten a less contrasty print with the 50/50 split.
what I mean is:
Perfect constant exposure: 50/50 split should look just like a 2.5 straight print
Not perfect constant exp due to faded filters: 50/50 split should look less contrasty since the grade 5 exposure is dimmer.
could it have anything to do with doing grade 0 first?
Doesn't it take a little while for papers to sensitize before they actually react to light?
I think that's why some people pre-flash their papers.
I wonder if I'd see the same results if I started with grade5 and then did grade 0.
I have an LPL VCCE and did paper contrast tests described by Anchell in “The Variable Contrast Printing Manual.” I found, as Matt points out, that the 2.5 setting does not necessarily provide the equivalent contrast (“range number”) as a “2.5” graded paper (range number ~95). So, with Matt, I found that the VCCE settings do not provide a linear increase in contrast. That is, the 2.5 setting does not result in a range number (paper grade) that is the average of the grades that the 0 and 5 settings provide. They are settings, not calibrated paper grades. Now...I know I should be able to provide my test data here, but I have a note from home . I moved and have not yet unpacked everything. I will look diligently tomorrow, however.
That’s why I put the 2.5 is in quotation marks. The equivalent range number would be approximately 95.
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?