On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Butch Black wrote: > I'm not familiar with Sprint chemistry but 30-45 seconds sounds too short > for a developing time even with RC paper and a 15W lamp bounced off the > ceiling sounds like it's way too weak of a light source. I would normally be
Believe it or not, its pretty bright..actually, its very bright. I don't understand how because it seems like that would be so very weak, but its definatly not the case here. Unless its just the overall murkiness of the prints. That's a definate possibility which is, again, the genesis behind this thread. :) > about 8-12 seconds under an enlarger at f4. I couldn't find anything on the > web on sprint developer at 1:19. I would suggest using the times recommended > with the chemistry which I would think would be around 1.5-2 min. I would This was off the bottle itself, two options.. 1:9 for 45s-1minute, or 1:19, no times given. 1:19 definatly exhausts mighty quickly, too. > point the bulb directly at the paper keeping it high enough to safely cover > the paper. Multigrade with out filters should print about a #2 grade. Once -cough- And now the next dumb question..uhm.. the higher the number, teh harder the paper, the harder the paper the more contrast. > you get your times etc correct, try to develop a consistent pattern in your > developing. It will make your life easier in the long run. No doubt, that's why I'm starting now with what I can. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio.
