|
nielsm posted:1. Picture side towards the metal or towards the canvas? 1: Towards the canvas. What rontalvos said is correct. If you want to do them toward the metal side, you need some special chemical- the name of which escapes me. The result is a super glossy finish. 2: I keep mine in until the canvas dries on top. If you take them out when that goes away, the print is ever so slightly damp, but hot enough that the rest of the moisture evaporates off in a few minutes. 3: I leave mine on the entire time I'm working with washing and drying prints. It doesn't get so hot that it's a safety hazard.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2011 16:13 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 01:51 |
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Interest check which I'll also be crossposting in the buy/sell thread. I might be interested in a lens if you don't mind splitting things up and shipping to Seattle.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2011 18:07 |
|
|
I am trying to print some negatives from the Lomo 360 spinner camera, and predictably having problems. The camera takes 35mm film, but each exposure captures a 360 degree image taking up roughly 6 frames worth of film. I have access to my schools darkroom, which has bessler enlargers and negative carriers for 35mm and 6x7 120 film. Is there any way of putting a 4x5 negative carrier in this enlarger? How else can I go about this?
|
| # ? Sep 8, 2011 23:53 |
|
|
Didn't know this thread existed, got some reading to do. On ventilation, how good does it need to be? I've got some fans in my bathroom, but they don't seem super-strong. It's otherwise pretty ideal for converting to a darkroom; roomy enough and with small windows that can easily be blacked out. My other option is taking a train an hour each way and paying for time at a darkroom cafe place in the prefectural capital. I think it's like $23/hour. wanderlost posted:I am trying to print some negatives from the Lomo 360 spinner camera, and predictably having problems. The camera takes 35mm film, but each exposure captures a 360 degree image taking up roughly 6 frames worth of film. Doing the math, it looks like you'd need an 8x10 enlarger to get all 6 frames (36mm = 1.41732283 inches, 1.41732283 x 6 is 8.5), then would either want to sandwich it between two sheets of glass or have a custom neg carrier cut.
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2011 00:33 |
|
|
When I enlarge, I do it in my bathroom with just the overhead fan on, and it's not even that strong. I've never passed out and I haven't died yet. Though when I first Kodak bought stop bath way back when, I took a huge whiff of it because I was curious how it smelled  and almost passed out. My nose tingled for like a week afterwards.
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2011 12:11 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Doing the math, it looks like you'd need an 8x10 enlarger to get all 6 frames (36mm = 1.41732283 inches, 1.41732283 x 6 is 8.5), then would either want to sandwich it between two sheets of glass or have a custom neg carrier cut. Awesome, thank you! I went to the store today and picked up some optically flawless glass, I'm going to try to jurry rig a negative carrier in the darkroom tomorrow afternoon after I develop some film. But, speaking of developing, I found a bottle of Adinol (rodinol) in the back of the developer cabinet, and I am anxious to try a 1:100 development. I have a roll of film, and a development time from the massive dev chart, but I wanna make sure I do the measurement right for the developer. My tank holds 1 reel and has a volume of 10 oz. to make 10oz of developer at 1:100, I'd need .1oz of the Adinol. .1oz is 2.96cc. So, armed with a syringe and graduated cylinder, I want 10 oz of h20 and 3cc's of Adinol. Is that really right? At that dilution, a single bottle must last decades. Does it go bad?
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2011 07:32 |
|
|
wanderlost posted:At that dilution, a single bottle must last decades. Does it go bad? Developer DOES go bad once it gets in contact with the air. At full-strength you should be good for a while, though.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2011 19:57 |
|
|
Rodinal has a shelf life measured in years, even opened. Don't worry about it.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2011 21:34 |
|
|
wanderlost posted:Awesome, thank you! I went to the store today and picked up some optically flawless glass, I'm going to try to jurry rig a negative carrier in the darkroom tomorrow afternoon after I develop some film. If you've got access to an 8x10 enlarger, go hog wild, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the results! I should have included in my post that your lab may very well not have one; 8x10 enlargers are fairly rare due to the massive size. Either way, I wish you luck! I'd grab a bigger tank, being able to do 2 or 3 reels at a time is nice.
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2011 00:08 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you've got access to an 8x10 enlarger, go hog wild, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the results! I should have included in my post that your lab may very well not have one; 8x10 enlargers are fairly rare due to the massive size. Either way, I wish you luck!
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2011 02:11 |
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Comedy option: Build an 8x10 enlarger. (glass+bellows+8x10lens+lamp) +Huge contraption to hold all of that a ways away from the paper with no vibrations.
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2011 02:16 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you've got access to an 8x10 enlarger, go hog wild, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the results! I should have included in my post that your lab may very well not have one; 8x10 enlargers are fairly rare due to the massive size. Either way, I wish you luck! We don't have any 8x10 enlargers or 4x5 negative carriers for our bessler 23Cs. I found a 6x9 carrier that I used to print some stuff off this morning, but I'm pretty disappointed by the results. I'll try and get something scanned this week. I have a 1 roll tank and a 5 roll tank. - I try to develop 5 at a time, but when I'm going to try new development techniques, I don't want to risk ruining 5 rolls so I want to try a single roll first with the Rodinol 1+100
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2011 02:30 |
|
|
wanderlost posted:We don't have any 8x10 enlargers or 4x5 negative carriers for our bessler 23Cs. I found a 6x9 carrier that I used to print some stuff off this morning, but I'm pretty disappointed by the results. I'll try and get something scanned this week. For good reason, the 23c can't go past 6x9.
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2011 09:25 |
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:+Huge contraption to hold all of that a ways away from the paper with no vibrations. Here after known as a tripod, since your huge rear end paper is going to have to be hung on the wall
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2011 05:47 |
|
|
Big printing is pretty damned fun. I played around with some forty-year-old 16x20 kodabromide recently, and despite it being a deep gray at the brightest, it's got me wanting to print a lot larger now.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2011 05:52 |
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Big printing is pretty damned fun. I played around with some forty-year-old 16x20 kodabromide recently, and despite it being a deep gray at the brightest, it's got me wanting to print a lot larger now. How do you develop huge prints like that? A bucket of developer and a painting brush?
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2011 10:45 |
|
|
nielsm posted:How do you develop huge prints like that? A bucket of developer and a painting brush? I've heard a bathtub can be useful.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2011 16:32 |
|
|
nielsm posted:How do you develop huge prints like that? A bucket of developer and a painting brush? I work at my old college and the darkroom there has a bunch of 16x20 trays. I've got a 6x9 enlarger in my apartment hallway though, and since I'm cheap, I've been using painters trays to develop stuff up to 11x14 in my bathtub.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2011 22:19 |
|
|
Tried a darkroom experiment today, things did not go well. I ran two rolls of 120 Illford Delta 400 through my rolleiflex, identical exposure, lighting, and composition. Roll 1 I developed normally using my school's standard (free) Kodak Developer 1:4. Roll 2 I developed using some Rodinol/Adinol at a 1:100 dilution using a dev time I pulled from the Massive Dev Chart. The first roll came out right, the second roll came out essentially blank. If I hold it up to the light, I can make out incredibly faint, ghostly images, but otherwise the strip is blank. What did I do wrong?
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 04:09 |
|
|
Did you agitate properly? Low agitation times are different from high-agitation ones. Same thing for concentration, if you did a 1:25 time for a 1:100 solution it won't work. Is the Adinol relatively new (last 25 years)?
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 12:48 |
|
|
What were the exact amounts of liquid and what specific times did you use? The negatives must be underdeveloped, so it sounds like you did the 1:100 wrong. Considering it is supposed to have no agitations after the first minute you either got the timing wrong or the volume of developer wrong.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 14:18 |
|
|
Also, I know some developers require at least 5ml of actual developer in the working solution to work correctly. I.e., if you had 3ml of Adinol in 300ml of water, it may not develop correctly - you would have to do 5ml+500ml. ...though now that I think of it, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Meh.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 14:35 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Did you agitate properly? Low agitation times are different from high-agitation ones. Same thing for concentration, if you did a 1:25 time for a 1:100 solution it won't work. Is the Adinol relatively new (last 25 years)? I'm not sure that I agitated properly, see below. Adinol is new, ordered it from freestyle this month. mysticp posted:What were the exact amounts of liquid and what specific times did you use? The negatives must be underdeveloped, so it sounds like you did the 1:100 wrong. Considering it is supposed to have no agitations after the first minute you either got the timing wrong or the volume of developer wrong. I tried to follow the directions on the massive dev chart as best I could: The smallest increment my darkroom is capable of measuring is 1/2oz, so that's what I based my ratio on. I used .5oz of developer and 50oz of water, mixed it up thoroughly, and developed for 36 minutes. The water was at the right temperature when it went into the tank, I agitated gently for 30 seconds, and then gave it a gently agitation every 5 minutes as per the dev chart.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 14:41 |
|
|
wanderlost posted:I tried to follow the directions on the massive dev chart as best I could: The smallest increment my darkroom is capable of measuring is 1/2oz, so that's what I based my ratio on. I used .5oz of developer and 50oz of water, mixed it up thoroughly, and developed for 36 minutes. The water was at the right temperature when it went into the tank, I agitated gently for 30 seconds, and then gave it a gently agitation every 5 minutes as per the dev chart. Your timing is too short. The average time for 1:100 stand development is an hour (with the first minute agitation), though you can go longer, I wouldn't recommend it with the amount of developer you are using. You should buy a graduated cylinder that can measure in milliliters. One that goes to 500ml in 25ml increments and one that goes to 10ml in 1ml increments (or use a medication syringe). Try this formula next time. 500ml water (assuming this covers the reel in your tank), 5ml rodinal. Agitate for first minute, stand for an hour. Stop/fix/wash. Stand development is based on the fact that in regular development you are overusing the developer by a huge amount, so you have to limit the time. Stand dev you use just the amount of developer that you need to totally develop the film and no more, so when you are done the developer is totally exhausted. So theoretically you can leave it for as long as you want with no harm, but you need to leave it for long enough to exhaust the developer.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 15:06 |
|
|
^^^ My process is very similar to this. I use a baby syringe, you get them at the grocery store, they're about $2, have no needle, and are very good for measuring ml-volume stuff. I do one empty cycle (fill, empty back into the bottle) to get the airbubble out as much as possible. He's right, you need to do more like an hour at 1:100. I do first minute, agitate at 5m and 30m for 5s each). Also, if you're in an especially cold area try to set it somewhere warm or worst case put it in a bit warmer to get the average at 20C. Generally speaking, the more you agitate, the faster it will develop and the more contrast it will have. Stand development causes some areas to develop quickly and deplete their supply of locally available developer, which makes them stop. The other areas continue to develop normally, which reduces contrast. Make sure to knock the bubbles off before you let it sit, then try to disturb it as little as possible.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 18:40 |
|
|
Ok, I think I might have discovered my problem. When I developed my roll, I did it in a single roll tank. It sounds like I didn't use enough of my developer solution. So, I'm going to go back today, and develop more film, but using a larger tank and a few dummy reels. I'll develop for longer, and report back this evening. All my development is done with filtered 20c water. I'm working in my school's darkroom, which has mad decent gear.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 23:13 |
|
|
[[ Please wait, retrieving information... ]]QPZIL posted:Also, I know some developers require at least 5ml of actual developer in the working solution to work correctly. I.e., if you had 3ml of Adinol in 300ml of water, it may not develop correctly - you would have to do 5ml+500ml. Even though the ratio would be correct there would not be enough actual chemical to adequately develop the film before it's depleted.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 23:37 |
|
|
I've never had too much of a problem stand developing with Rodinal at 1:100 for 135 and 1:125 for 120 with the appropriate volumes. I just followed this guys tips at the rangefinder forum: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...96&postcount=47
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 06:27 |
|
|
The darkroom at nyu has the best enlarger I've ever used; now that i've started using it, my prints have genuinely improved and I can't imagine working on anything else. It's a Zone VI LED enlarger. Instead of having a lamp, or two lamps, it has two banks of LEDs, one green (for soft light) and one blue (for hard). Each can be adjusted anywhere from 00 to 99 in terms of their brightness, leading to ridiculous amounts of control over brightness and contrast, and it makes it incredibly easy to split filter. Do one exposure at 99-00 (maximum soft light) and then one at (00-99) maximum hard light, and then burn if needed with anywhere from (99-33) to (33-99). It's a genuinely wonderful machine. One catch: it's not available for sale any more, and neither are parts. If you can find one, that's awesome.
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2011 13:00 |
|
|
I read about someone making his own somewhere out of a block of aluminum. If you've got a mill, you're set. Might still be possible with just a drill press, a hacksaw, and some ingenuity. Superbright LEDs are cheap, then you need some way to diffuse it a bit and possibly a way to cool the head. Honestly I've even thought about trying to build one with dual blue and UV lights. Get an enlarger lens that's corrected from UV to at least blue if not the whole visible spectrum (so the blue and UV focus at the same distance), focus in blue, switch to the UV for printing. You could print silver-chloride like Lodima with something like that. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Oct 12, 2011 around 13:27 |
| # ? Oct 12, 2011 13:22 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I read about someone making his own somewhere out of a block of aluminum. If you've got a mill, you're set. Might still be possible with just a drill press, a hacksaw, and some ingenuity. Superbright LEDs are cheap, then you need some way to diffuse it a bit and possibly a way to cool the head. after some googling, there's a german company that makes LED banks up to 8x10 in blue and green. http://www.heilandelectronic.de/htm...tlicht_main.htm here's the text from that site roughly translated quote:They wanted to use long Splitgrade ®?
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2011 13:36 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I read about someone making his own somewhere out of a block of aluminum. If you've got a mill, you're set. Might still be possible with just a drill press, a hacksaw, and some ingenuity. Superbright LEDs are cheap, then you need some way to diffuse it a bit and possibly a way to cool the head. Probably could do what the salt water aquarium folks do with their DIY LED light arrays they use in lieu of all the other fancy lights for coral and what not. Concept is pretty much the same.
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2011 13:45 |
|
|
I'm planing on doing some contact printing with some 4x5 film in the near future, and just wanted to know a few things if anyone has tried it: - What kind of paper is best suited? I've seen people talk about silver chloride, but that seems like it's more trouble than its worth - Are you using just a lamp or bare bulb? - I'm right in assuming the process after the exposure of the paper is the same as any other printing process?
|
| # ? Oct 24, 2011 01:09 |
|
|
Just started printing using 16x20 Ilford Warmtone Semi-matt. It's such a gorgeous paper, but at $4.20 a sheet it'd better be.
|
| # ? Oct 26, 2011 14:28 |
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Just started printing using 16x20 Ilford Warmtone Semi-matt. It's such a gorgeous paper, but at $4.20 a sheet it'd better be. Selenium toning with warmtone paper = 
|
| # ? Oct 27, 2011 06:15 |
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Just started printing using 16x20 Ilford Warmtone Semi-matt. It's such a gorgeous paper, but at $4.20 a sheet it'd better be. Holy poo poo, I feel bad for complaining that a 40x60cm sheet from Kentmere cost a euro.
|
| # ? Oct 28, 2011 18:11 |
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Selenium toning with warmtone paper = I've never toned before, is it really worth the effort.
|
| # ? Oct 29, 2011 18:18 |
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I've never toned before, is it really worth the effort. It's more than worth the effort. Just do it in a well ventilated room and wash the print thoroughly. It's essential if you want to produce an archival print.
|
| # ? Oct 29, 2011 21:51 |
|
|
mysticp posted:It's more than worth the effort. Just do it in a well ventilated room and wash the print thoroughly. It's essential if you want to produce an archival print. Well, just ordered some Ilford selenium toner. Looking forward to seeing the results.
|
| # ? Oct 30, 2011 21:28 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 01:51 |
|
|
mysticp posted:It's more than worth the effort. Just do it in a well ventilated room and wash the print thoroughly. It's essential if you want to produce an archival print. I've still never pulled the trigger on selenium toning. From what I understand, it darkens the blacks a bit, adding a bit of contrast. That's all well and good, but I already print with my blacks about as far dark as possible while still getting some tone separation. Do you find you need to do any printing correction to prep for selenium?
|
| # ? Oct 31, 2011 16:22 |
|
