Re: [APML]: Hypering PJM (was: Best Beginner Film)

[Robert Hoyle <rhoyle@earthlink.net>]

Eric, concerning the non-necessity of hypering PJM:

Notwithstanding the comments of others more experienced than I, you
might still want to try it hypered.  My limited experience with PJM is
that while it is has a very good grain (easily equal to that of PPF),
and is "faster" than PPF (but reciprocity?), PJM's color balance is not
nearly as good as PPF's. PJM seems to be sorely lacking in "blue"
response, and has a slight, over-all reddish/magenta tint which I could
not "balance out" with the printing process (assuming that your "color
balance" is one which achieves a good "black" sky).

This loss of "blue" may be more important than it sounds, especially on
galaxy shots, where it fails to record the "proper" color for regions in
spiral arms that have recently formed stars (generally blueish in "true"
color, recorded as mostly magenta by PJM) -- and it makes the emission
nebula star forming regions in these arms way too red/magenta (maybe
this is good?).

Several sources have indicated that minimal hypering will improve this
blue response failure of PJM.  I am still awaiting some favorable
weather in my part of California, to test this out.  But, when this
unlikely weather event does occur, I will try 3hrs, 3psi, 50F,
in-cannister hypering w/ hand vacuum pump (and, unfortunately, lack of
all other accoutrements such as densitometer and step wedge, too).  Best
of Luck to you.  Robert, Concord, Ca. (near Oakland).


Eric Shelton wrote:
> How long are folks hypering PJM?
> 
> I'm new to hypering, don't have a densitometer or step wedge, and
> use a Lumicon 300 hypering kit with hand vacuum pump at 50C.
> 
> I know I need to experiment, but I want to hyper a roll and make some
> shots this weekend (el meano permitting).