Re: Kodak infrared

[Cor Breukel <cor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Elton N. Kaufmann - Cycloid Fathom Group wrote:

> On the other hand, Cor's post  specifies 1:1 and that he is happy with his
> results.  But, he also indicates an EI of 250, whereas Guido's EI was 400.
> Given the differences in IR sensitivity of meters relative to visible
> light, it is reasonable to assume that Cor is simply putting more light on
> the film than Kodak assumes and processing weaker than Kodak recommends.
> That's OK, of course.  Maybe even preferable?  It all seems quite plausible
> to me, so what is the issue here, if any?

...well there is no issue, it's just that there are many "routes" that
lead to good (=your own definition) IR prints as proven time and time
again on the list..when starting out one can only use the suggestions from
somebody, and than find your own approach..incedentally I used KODAK's
information by mistake, I assumed 1:1 dilution of D76 (that's what I
normally use) I got pleasing results, an read afterwards that I should
have used UNdiluted....



Cor Breukel

http://ruly70.medfac.leidenuniv.nl/~cor/cor.html
"The Infrared Gallery"
http://ruly70.medfac.leidenuniv.nl/~cor/ir-gallery.html


*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

------------------------------