Re: Flashing: was: Making sense of film curve graphs

Wolfgang Thoma wrote:

> Loris Medici wrote:
>
>> MessageHi Kate,
>>
>> I wonder why A. Adams was using (or included in his book)
>> pre-exposure but not post-exposure. If he was thinking it's the same
>> thing, he should have mentioned that pre-exposure can be substituted
>> with post-exposure. But somehow he doesn't mention this in his book.
>> Of course, I'm not saying as Adams doesn't mention it, such a thing
>> doesn't exist or everything that Adams said is correct - we know that
>> it's not... especially when it comes to alt. processes ;)
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kate Mahoney
>> To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:23 PM
>> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Flashing: was: Making sense of film
>> curve graphs
>>
>>
>> All paper has a threshold where image detail will start to show, and
>> any exposure less than this will not give any indication that the
>> paper's been exposed. Flashing the paper brings it up to the
>> threshold. It is a curious idea that we can fog the paper without it
>> showing but essentially that's what it is. And because it's just an
>> addition of exposure, like burning-in, it can be done either before
>> or after the main exposure. There really shouldn't be any difference!
>>
>> Cheers
>> Kate
>
>
> I don't have the book and therefore theoretically can not answer, but
> maybe Adams just was afraid to spoil shots with post-flashing that he
> made with his zone system?
> taco
>
The guy who started this was Joe VanCleave on the f295forum under The
Round Table > The Darkroom/Lab > Pre-flashing of paper negatives
taco

> **

<http://f295.tompersinger.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?>

_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Tue Nov 30 15:03:47 2004