Digital BW, The Print

On the negative vs. print and environmental hazard, pray tell more.

Scott

Paul Aparycki wrote:

> Something I do a lot when I shoot 4x5 for myself (most of the time I am
> using a roll back and agfapan25). The results on 55 are magic when you get
> it right. It has a beautiful tonal range, very, very fine razor sharp 
> grain,
> and while Skip didn't elaborate, the exposure for a good neg is not a good
> exposure for a print . . . Polaroid acknowledges this and addresses it in
> their data sheets. If you go this route, practice until you get a feel for
> the material and then pull the sheets without processing . . . do it later
> at home. Using their little sand bucket and trying to clear this stuff 
> while
> you are fighting off mountain lions, killer bees and williwaws is not 
> a good
> idea.
>
> Downside? It is a little expensive and it is delicate (which is why it is
> better to process in a confined area). It is also an enviromental hazard,
> but then so is the excess byproduct from computer manufacturing, so I 
> guess
> we are excused. (maybe we can get Christo to wrap an island with all those
> discarded monitors instead of pink sheets?).
>
> good luck
> Paul Aparycki
>
> >I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
> flatbed
> > (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
> darkroom. Scott
>
> Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
> orprint-not both-and
> scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
> darkroom. Groovyborders if you
> so choose...skip
>
>