SLIMT - Why Is It Ignored?
Dan Quinn
Does it really work well? Dan
Francis A. Miniter
I have used it when printing, but not with negatives. It works. I
remember my first response to it was to think that all we ever need if
Grade 5 paper. That now turns out to be about all we cannot get.
Francis A. Miniter
Gary Beasley
>The method is child's play and quickly done. Has anyone given it a try?
>Does it really work well? Dan
Could you elaborate? I've never heard that acronym before.
Robert Vervoordt
>The method is child's play and quickly done. Has anyone given it a try?
>Does it really work well? Dan
Yep, I tried it in the last days of my access to a darkroom, at home.
It worked on evry color paper I hadon hand. I didn't try it on the
Cibachrome, due to expense and its use for making money.
I used it on color negative movie film and it reduced the contrst so
much, that it looked defective. I guessed that I was using it at a
strength that was inappropriate, but never got to test further.
Funnily, I don't recall using it on BW, as I had formulated some
really effective 2 bath developers and had no need for further
reductions in contrast; when you consider the flexibility that VC paer
brings to the process, there isn't much pressure to fiddle contrast,
except in some extreme situations that I never encountered.
Regards to all.
Robert Vervoordt, MFA
Jorge Omar
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?
q=slimt+group:rec.photo.darkroom&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&group=rec.photo.darkroom&selm=D3sxBE.2y8%40freenet.carleton.ca&rnum=6
Never used it, but looks quite interesting.
Jorge
beasl...@mindspringnospam.com (Gary Beasley) wrote in
news:3f8ae80b...@news.east.earthlink.net:
Jorge Omar
Jorge Omar <jorg...@ieg.com.br> wrote in
news:Xns9413A4DC62624...@130.133.1.4:
Dan Quinn
(Dan Quinn) wrote:
>
> > The method is child's play and quickly done. Has anyone given
> > it a try? Does it really work well?
>
> Could you elaborate? I've never heard that acronym before.
See the article "latent image bleaching" at unblinkingeye. From
the home page click, articles, then at "more articles" look under
"printing and finishing".
Also search Google for, slimt print .
Looks to me as though it might be a real winner of a technique,
particularly for roll film users. Note when reading that no one or
two grades of paper are singled out. Also note that dilutions as
high as 1:100,000 are usefull. Dan
Jorge Omar
technique only.
Is there an inverted SLIMT? Intensifier?
Jorge
dan.c...@att.net (Dan Quinn) wrote in
news:b379902d.03101...@posting.google.com:
Sherman
news:Xns9413CBE89F487...@130.133.1.4...
> What I see as a (possible) handicap is that it's a contrast lowering
> technique only.
> Is there an inverted SLIMT? Intensifier?
>
> Jorge
>
Selenium toning negs (post processing) can give you about +1 expansion vs.
the original neg. I've only used it a couple of times but it worked. There
was an article on using it to get N+1 when shooting Polaroid Type 55
negatives. I think it was in "View Camera" a year or so ago.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Jorge Omar
But again, the lords at Kodak Brazil decided we no longer need to use
selenium toners...
Jorge
"Sherman" <shermanD...@dunnam.net> wrote in
news:enIib.48851$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Peter De Smidt
Lynn Radeka has a write-up about it in his masking kit. Apparently,
you can get quite substantial minus developments in it without a huge
loss of film speed. Radeka beaches the minus negaives for the
approporiate time, and then he develops them, along with N negatives,
for the regular development time. If I remember right, he uses a
Jobo. Whilte I've never had occasion to try it, I think that his
results speak for themselves.
-Peter
John
wrote:
>Selenium toning negs (post processing) can give you about +1 expansion vs.
>the original neg. I've only used it a couple of times but it worked. There
>was an article on using it to get N+1 when shooting Polaroid Type 55
>negatives. I think it was in "View Camera" a year or so ago.
Try a sulfide toner for higher intensification. Kodak T-8 will give at
least +1.5. Polytoner would give +2.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
reply to jo...@darkroompro.com
Dan Quinn
"...bleaches the minus negatives..." He works with sheet film.
I could use two or more backs for the 120 I shoot and do the same.
Is there any benefit to that over a minus development; perhaps
maintaining a higher ISO?
More straight forward would be to process the 120 "plus" and
employ SLIMT when printing. Higher ISO and more grain and less
... well more straight forward and higher ISO.
I'd think push processors would have a field day with SLMIT. I
may put off work with two bath contrast control in favor of an
order with Photo. Formulary for additional chemicals. Dan
Sherman
news:b379902d.03101...@posting.google.com...
Supposedly, and I am only repeating what I've read, not what I've done,
there is no loss of film speed with SLIMT. If so that would be one
advantage over minus development.
With all this discussion about it I'm getting the itch to give it a try. I
need to locate some definitive source regarding dilutions and times to start
with for the bleaching. If adjustment using this technique means I can
shoot high contrast scenes without having to adjust my EI and expsoure I
might prefer this to minus development.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Dan Quinn
> "Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote
>
> > RE: Peter De Smidt
> >
> > "...bleaches the minus negatives..." He works with sheet film.
> > I could use two or more backs for the 120 I shoot and do the same.
> > Is there any benefit to that over a minus development; perhaps
> > maintaining a higher ISO?
> > More straight forward would be to process the 120 "plus" and
> > employ SLIMT when printing. Higher ISO and more grain and less
> > ... well more straight forward and higher ISO.
> > I'd think push processors would have a field day with SLMIT. I
> > may put off work with two bath contrast control in favor of an
> > order with Photo. Formulary for additional chemicals. Dan
>
> Supposedly, and I am only repeating what I've read, not what I've done,
> there is no loss of film speed with SLIMT. If so that would be one
> advantage over minus development.
>
> With all this discussion about it I'm getting the itch to give it a try. I
> need to locate some definitive source regarding dilutions and times to start
> with for the bleaching. If adjustment using this technique means I can
> shoot high contrast scenes without having to adjust my EI and expsoure I
> might prefer this to minus development.
>
> Sherman
My second post this thread tells where to look for the some of the
"definitive" information. I think all the info needed for starters is
there at .unblinkingeye.. Also search this NG for, slimt. Dr. M.
Gudzinowicz has done quite a lengthy paper on the subject.
Mr. Miniter's first impression was that one grade of paper
may do it all. He mentioned grade 5 but that is only for the very
greatest effect. A photo at .unblink was made on grade 4 and
used SLIMT to lighten the shadow areas while, I'd suppose,
exposeing for the highlights. It'll take some working at. Dan