Re: [APML]: New Photos & Comparison

[Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>]

Steve Bell wrote:
> 
> By that I guess you mean that hypered TP is not "into" significant
> reciprocity failure until exposed for several hours. That's interesting.

I have some data that shows hypered TP to be practically flat to 2 hours.
That's why it's truely useful to 3 hour expsoures. 
 
> I believe we've discussed "bag" fog vs. "good" fog in the past, but I am
> at a lost to understand the difference. From how I understand fogging
> decreases reciprocity failure, it is like a "seeding" of the grain sites
> so that even low levels of light will be recorded.

In the strictest sense all fog is bad fog but some is necessary or it
wouldn't be hypered. There is a such thing as bad fog and that is fog
that comes from high humidity. That fog decreases the sensitivity of TP.

> For example, the "StarFleet Acadamey emblem"
> shapped smaller nebulosity located at the center of the complex. On my
> computer monitor, the first photo shows more detail in it. I've found
> that it seems some people believe, with the right processing or darkroom
> techniques, one can draw out detail in these blocked up parts. I don't
> understand that. To me, if a part of an object was burned in during the
> exposure (eg, like the central parts of M42), then any detail there is
> simply wiped out. And that's not necessarily a bad thing - if you want
> to record the dimmer parts of some object, then quite often the brighter
> parts get overexposed. That's just a fact of photographic life.

If they are blocked up on the film you certainly can't get anything
out of it but most TP prints or scans are not blocked up on the negative.
TP has a very high dynamic range, at least 4.0.

Let me see if there's anything I can do with my 6334 scans.

Chuck  <aa6g@aa6g.org>