On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: > >I figured I might be better off standardizing on a different grade paper. > You're correct.
Almost correct, as you and others have pointed out: A filter set is pretty cheap. At this point in the experimention, I think it might be easier to move to just filtering the MG paper, and saving the graded paper for down the line when I start to get my feel for it down. > But it's true. Doesn't work like film. Pulling the paper before it's > fully developed can be bad for print life, too. Really? I picked up my current slapdash habits from a friend (previous to that, its been over a decade since I played with printing in highschool). I've basically been following suit to what he does until I picked up a timer that I wanted to use. I wrote off some of his bad prints as being poorly fixed in teh way they've purpled and faded. I wonder if its actually his development? > You just need to get one of the filter sheets between your light source > and your paper somehow. Either that or, as you said, switch to fixed > grade papers. I also wasn't sure if I could even use a filter in printing, as I wasn't sure if the filter needed to come between the neg and the paper.. That is, if the way it functioned was to filter out some of what you're actually enlarging. Again, clearly it affect's the light itself. Err.. Perhaps I didn't explain that right, but rest assured, I've got it. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio.
