Digital BW, The Print

Steve-

> In a message dated 5/24/2003 9:39:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> kevin@... writes:
> Snip>
>> The problem is that the contrast of the positive is drastically
>> different from the contrast of the negative or any negative film that 
>> I
>> shoot.  So what is in the deep shadows on the positive is barely in 
>> the
>> shadows on the negative.
>>
>> I thought polaroid film was used for proofing all the time -- is type
>> 55 wrong for proofing, do people compensate in printing, or was I just
>> off base to start with.
>>
>> Thanks,>>
>> I don't know if I would say type 55 is a proofing film. Most polaroid 
>> film
> dosen't give you a negative. In my experience Type 55 needs to be 
> overexposed to
> produce a good neg for printing. This is NOT the film commercial 
> shooters use
> for proofing. Those that use this film(type55) are using it to get 
> that neg.
> I shoot it at 25-30 to get negs I like. The negs do scan very nicely. 
> If the
> positive looks great, I would say you need another stop in exposure to 
> get a
> good negative from that film for printing or scanning. Any neg under 
> exposed is
> going to be very problematic.
> There are several other Polaroid positive films 100,400asa, color and 
> B&W to
> proof your lighting and exposures, and they are cheaper than type 55, 
> but
> you'll have too shoot a traditional neg after the proofs check out. I 
> do believe
> Type 55 produces beautiful negs. Any pro camera shop that sells a 
> variety of
> Polaroid films should be able to get you where you want to go.
> Steve Meyers

Thanks.  I have used it for the negative and I like it at 25.

I had understood that to get a good positive you should expose it 
between 64 and 100 so I figured it would work for proofing - whether I  
changed the exposure by two stops and kept the negative or shot one of 
my regular choices.

Perhaps there is a better choice that matches the contrast of a 
negative better.

--
Kevin Gulstene
www.dockwalker.com