Life Expectancy of Latent Image on Paper ?
dan.c...@att.net
Given it's slow emulsion speed and usual safer
keeping I'd think exposeing today then processing
next year would be plenty soon enough.
With the amount of testing and experimenting I do
that expose today - process later method could
see me sooner to some to show printing. Dan
Scott W
don't see why you would expose paper before you are ready to develop
it. In the case of film you might be out in the woods or on the road
but with paper you can do the exposure anytime you wish, like right
before developing the print. I must be missing something here.
Scott
michael...@yahoo.com
much easier to flash a bunch of paper at one time, but I usually end up
with a few sheets left over. I'd love to know if the fog will degrade
if left for, say, a week.
jo....@bigpond.com
dan.c...@att.net
> ... with paper you can do the exposure anytime you wish,
> like right before developing the print. I must be missing
> something here.
>
> Scott
Just a matter of shorter sessions in the darkroom. Or
for the same time spent, more of the one done. Work the
dry side one day, the wet another. More efficient use
of time I'd think. Dan
Nick Zentena
Only if you're 100% sure of the dry side. First time you make a mistake
any time saving will go up in smoke.
Nick
--
---------------------------------------
"Digital the new ice fishing"
---------------------------------------
Scott W
Yeah, I can see a day and maybe even up to a weeek, but the OP was
talking about up to a year.
Scott
laura halliday
> I can see why someone might not want to develop film right off, but I
> don't see why you would expose paper before you are ready to develop
> it. In the case of film you might be out in the woods or on the road
> but with paper you can do the exposure anytime you wish, like right
> before developing the print. I must be missing something here.
This is of particular interest to folks who use paper
as film, like pinhole photographers.
I threw a 5x7 pinhole camera together out of scrap
lumber and have been playing with it, but if I take
it into the field it will usually be a few hours before
I can develop my pictures.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte
dan.c...@att.net
>
> dan.c...@att.net wrote:g
> >
> > Just a matter of shorter sessions in the darkroom. Or
> > for the same time spent, more of the one done. Work the
> > dry side one day, the wet another. More efficient use
> > of time I'd think. Dan
>
> Only if you're 100% sure of the dry side. First time you
> make a mistake any time saving will go up in smoke.
>
> Nick
>
Perhaps I've more of a modular approach in mind
than some. My background in computer programming has
underscored that. Then there are the short, in the dark,
sessions I manage.
Within a few days I'll be testing that homebrew Lith I've
mentioned. Each of three or four chemicals will be varied in
amount. Exposeing and developing times will be altered.
I won't be making any mistakes. Each sheet exposed
and developed will be unique and that allowed for prior to
the start of the series of experiments.
I've still not an answer to the "Life Expectancy ..."
question. Perhaps I should test for that myself. Likely
a dry side - wet side routine is good for
some occasions. Dan
Nick Zentena
> I won't be making any mistakes. Each sheet exposed
> and developed will be unique and that allowed for prior to
> the start of the series of experiments.
> I've still not an answer to the "Life Expectancy ..."
> question. Perhaps I should test for that myself. Likely
> a dry side - wet side routine is good for
> some occasions. Dan
>
I make mistakes-) I've seen latent numbers for RA-4 papers but never for
B&W. Kodak claims 24 hours. I found a Konica document that seems to show 192
hours with almost no change. I'm assuming Kodak is playing it safe with it's
24 hour claim. Figure B&W paper would be better. But nobody seems to mention
it.