Digital BW, The Print

On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 10:27  PM, sdmey4@... wrote:

> 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
>> differ
>> 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.
>>
>  This is NOT the film commercial shooters use
> for proofing. Those that use this film(type55) are using it to get 
> that neg.
>
Oh yes it is - at least it's the only film I use for proofing. 
Especially in architecture and interiors, it's necessary to know that 
you have good depth of field, and the negative is the only way to check 
it. I just rip it off and look at it with a loupe, no need to develop 
it or anything. Also, yes, it is contrastier than the film. However, if 
I want the transparency to look "like" the 55 positive, I underexpose 
the transparency one stop and push 1/2 and it get exactly what I want. 
Also, I shoot both Portra NC and VC negative films with it. If I want a 
print to look like the transparency (which looks like the polaroid) I 
use the VC. It's more contrasty.

But, Kevin is certainly right. The contrast of the positive is 
drastically different. You just have to get used to it.

Barbara
>
>
Barbara White Architectural Photography
http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com