Re: [Leica] Print Development Time

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

Frank!
You are right- an expensive densitometer is not needed! I have done
negatives that exhibit a given ratio of contrast under a densitomer, but
when placed in an enlarger, the contrast apparently changes when using the
enlarging meter.
Granted, the enlarging meter is not 'calibrated' but here we are talking
about relative measures, and even comparing the readings with a calibrated
step tablet, I find that what I measure in absolutes with just the film in
the densitometer, I get less contrast when I put the negative in the
enlarger!
I use an old Beseler color analyzer, set on the 'white' channel as a
'densitomer' when evaluating negatives under the enlarger. Doing it there
allows for differences in enlarging lenses to be taken into consideration
automatically as you are reading the negative in the same situation in which
it will be printed.
These meters, like a PM2L or PM2A are available for around a hundred bucks
on ebay, and the savings in paper and chemicals alone make it worthwhile!
As an aside, it always amazes me that people with spend relatively vast
amounts on a Sekonic 508, f'rinstance, to make the 'perfect' negative, the
try to 'eyeball' it in the darkroom! All the fancy matrix metering is wasted
unless you use the same precision ( Hell, ANY precision!) in the darkroom!
I've shown several people how it'sdone, and all have become enthusiastic at
being able to worry less about HOW to make the best print, technically, and
concentrate on the the content- composition, subject, etc.
Sorry for the long winded post!
Dan
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Filippone <red735i@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 11:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Print Development Time


> Dan....B+W right???     typically a reflection densitometer is used to
> assess print values.  I have asked my favorite pro lab to measure the
values
> for me, about a 5 minute job.  Buying a $500++++ densitometer to do this
> myself is a bit too expensive for my tastes.
>
> Remember that you are comparing relative values, so absolute precision is
> unimportant.
>
> Frank Filippone
>