Quote:
Originally Posted by John King
Does the 'adviser' say anything about temperature as well? It is all tied up with time. is that guesstimated as well?
Stick with the timer and you have a constant base for printing.
Oh yes I forgot, of course, it was on 'YouTube' so it must be correct!
|
John, there is no mention about temperature and I agree that a timer is a good constant to stick to. Maybe ignoring the temperature is the start of another thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray
Terry, is this the same video to which you refer in your other post on a video on test strips? Can you provide a link so I can have a look at it
Like John it sounds a bit flawed to me as well but I am curious
Mike
|
I think it might be Mike. I'll have a look in my history and see if I can find it. If I can, I'll PM you the link. I'll do this, as I don't want him to get the impression that he's talking a lot of sense, because of an increase in viewing numbers of his 'videos'!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie
I time everything - just for the consistency of the process.
I develop prints for longer than Ilford recommend - to try and achieve finality in the process - so any area of the print which is slightly late getting in to the developer still gets sufficient x 1.5
I remember back to my days at University, there were a few people on the photography course that I was on - who were trying to be cool and interesting - would not time their processes - and on their whole their work reflected it (generally rubbish).
Martin
|
I time everything too Martin.
I have followed Ilford's processing times as close to the letter as possible over the years, as they have done a lot more testing than I'll ever have time for. This has yielded me results that I like, but I am lucky to have a Nova slot processor to keep my chemicals at a constant temperature, in a wood cabin at the end of the garden, that gets rather cold for months at a time. This has definitely contributed to producing work that I am happy with. But, during one my future sessions, when I have time, I'll try a x5 emergence exposure print or two like you and Uwe do, and compare them to my usual routine printed prints.
And I too have known of people similar to what you mention, who have followed their own processing rules from the start, which mostly ends up with them getting not very good results, but they would try and talk them up anyway. As someone said, 'Learn the rules first and then you can learn to break them'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skellum
Time your development!
Fibre papers need not less than 2 minutes.
Time the test strip, never pull it because 'it looks dark enough'. Often the correct exposure looks too dark under safe-light anyway.
Highlights reach full development last so alway know you've given long enough.
Give the print the same time you gave the test strip.
|
I totally agree with your first few lines Skellum.
Terry S