Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Dear Ben, > >Does Flanigan have some numbers for developing Ilford Delta 100 and >Ilford Delta 400? > >Just curious, I use a lot of these films. > >thanks, >Tim > I'll ask. I suspect his answer will be to rate the 100 @ 50 and the 400 @ 200. We had this talk in where he explained the following concept: When you expose a scene with deep shadows and bright highlights (contrasty) and then develop to bring out the shadow details, at some point in the developing the shadows stop increasing in density at the same rate as the highlights. This increases contrst and makes the neg harder to print without burning or dodging. By underrating the film (overexposure) you adequately expose these shadow areas. Then by underdeveloping the film you narrow the contrast to a manageable range. This isn't new - people have been doing this for eons. It's new for me though. I've chronically overdeveloped my negs for more than two decades, deluding myself into "liking" contrasty prints. On the day I met Flanigan, I showed him some work that I was very proud of. He asked me, "why so contrasty?". I immediatly disliked him. Later, I saw some of his prints and realized that he knew something. Since then I've applied most of what he has taught me and my stuff has taken a leap into quality that has thus far eluded me. Sorry to bore thoses of you who are already "aware", to those of you who are still pushing film - there's something to this. Regards, Ben W. Holmes Boulder, CO USA bholmes@frii.com