I don't bracket but in the 7 x 17 there are times when I will shoot two of the same exact exposure to give myself a chance at a different development time if I don't like the contrast of the first negative.
If I have a problem of this type in 7X17 or 12X20 I prefer to scan, correct, and print with digital negatives rather than trying to physically correct the negative.
Scan 12x20 negatives? Yikes. I can't imagine myself doing that. Can you tell us what resolution you scan a 12x20 at and what size file that results in?
I think a cost/benefit analysis (for me) would say that making a duplicate exposure might be the answer (Unless of course one is already setup for that kind of file processing - which I'm not.)
These are all great answers, I appreciate everyone sharing their shooting technique.
john
I'm not sure if 5x12 qualifies as ULF
Actually, the diagonal for 5x12 is slightly larger than that of 8x10.
12X20 at 1200 dpi grayscale and resulting file is 660mb.
7X17 at 1600 dpi grayscale and resulting file is 580mb.
If cost analysis were the only consideration you would be right in that making a duplicate exposure might be a better solution. But most films available for ULF (TMY excluded) do not provide enough contrast for the processes I print with, regardless of developer and length of development time. So my choice is either scan and make digital negatives, or make enlarged negatives on high contrast lith film. Both methods are capable of equally good results, but I prefer the former as a more productive work flow.
Sandy King
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?