Re: Paper negative mystery

Here's a second to Jim's suggestion of reflection from show and water,
or any whites. Using RC rapid paper as a negative, I usually cut back
on the exposure by 1/2 to 1 stop when there is a significant white
portion in the scene. Another possibility is old or exhausted
chemistry. I've ruined a few RC rapid negatives by developing them in
a group darkroom that did not have absolutely fresh developer. They
were pretty dull and muddy, and were a lesson learned the hard way.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kosinski Family" <zinski@telenet.net>
To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative mystery

> Perhaps there was some damage to the camera or pinhole that let a
lot more
> light in. Most likely, it was due to the increase in light intensity
when:
> a) the atmosphere is cleaner (this increases as you get closer to
the poles)
> b) there is a lot of reflection from snow or water
> I have to decrease exposures when I go from upstate NY just to the
Maine
> coast!
> Test it first.
> Jim K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HypoBob <hypobob@pacbell.net>
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Date: Saturday, September 23, 2000 12:43 PM
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative mystery
>
>
> >Recently I took a pinhole camera to Alaska and exposed several
negatives
> >
> >on a developer-incorporated, B&W, variable contrast RC paper.
> >
> >Upon my return, development of these paper negatives resulted in
very
> >dense, very flat negatives, as if the whole negative had been
uniformly
> >and heavily fogged. This was a complete surprise because exposure
and
> >development were exactly as I had done in the past with no
problems.
> >
> >My first thought was that the latent image had degraded in the six
days
> >between exposure and development. However, a subsequent test
reveals
> >that while the latent image will change a little in six days, the
change
> >
> >is not nearly enough to explain this problem.
> >
> >I also wondered if the airport carry-on x-ray machines had fogged
the
> >paper, but unexposed paper that went through the x-rays has since
been
> >used and shows no fogging at all.
> >
> >Another thought is that maybe the abundant UV at higher latitudes
had
> >simply overexposed the negatives. With no glass to attenuate UV,
the
> >UV-sensitive B&W paper negatives were exposed to the entire UV
spectrum.
> >
> >Do any of you have any answers, suggestions, thoughts as to why a
> >process that works fine here in sunny California would meet with
such
> >disaster on a trip to Alaska???
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> >Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> >unsubscribe or change your account at
> >http://www.pinhole.com/discussion/
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> unsubscribe or change your account at
> http://www.pinhole.com/discussion/
>
Received on Mon Sep 25 09:48:10 2000