|
Get some permawash and you should be able to cut down on a lot of that washing time.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 22:53 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 03:13 |
|
|
If you have some ventilated space, I really really recommend selenium toning. It makes your pictures truly archivally stable and gives richer blacks. It's kind of incredible how you put a print in this liquid and it comes out looking better.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 23:27 |
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:If you have some ventilated space, I really really recommend selenium toning. It makes your pictures truly archivally stable and gives richer blacks. It's kind of incredible how you put a print in this liquid and it comes out looking better. I think this might be my next step with the B&W printing. Its just a matter of getting the finished print and sitting it in the toner for a given period of time and drying isn't it?
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 00:44 |
|
|
Spedman posted:I think this might be my next step with the B&W printing. Its just a matter of getting the finished print and sitting it in the toner for a given period of time and drying isn't it? It's a bit more complex than that, but close enough I guess. I wrote this basic guide way back http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...6#post393703054 Also make sure you wash the print for the equivalent of an hour in water, or whatever it is with permawash. Basically follow the washing instructions to the letter. Toned prints need a huge amount of washing and it is essential.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 01:26 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I printed on fiber paper on Wednesday and my dry prints have a noticeable yellowish tint to them compared to the RC prints. All the paper is Ilford MGIV. Did they not get washed long enough? They got 4 minutes in the hypo and at least half an hour in the print washer. The print washer is a slotted plexiglass contraption, though, and I'm not sure how well it washes prints considering the prints seem to stick to the plexiglass - my old high school darkroom had a bigass rotary washer that spun the prints around quite a bit. I went back to the photo store to talk to them about this and they had the Ilford paper sample book. The FB/RC in the sample book showed the same difference in tone as I'd found. 
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 01:30 |
|
|
mysticp posted:It's a bit more complex than that, but close enough I guess. Ahh yes, much thanks! I think I'll do a little more colour printing this weekend, and give the toning a go in the next few weeks. Are there any brands of toners that are worth getting/avoiding?
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 03:12 |
|
|
Spedman posted:Ahh yes, much thanks! I think I'll do a little more colour printing this weekend, and give the toning a go in the next few weeks. Never heard of one to avoid. Selenium is the standard to start with, then mess around with the specialist stuff (gold, sepia, etc). I use Kodak Selenium.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 03:15 |
|
|
I use Ilford Selenium. 1:20 dilution for 5 minutes.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 06:17 |
|
|
Am I right in remembering that RC paper doesn't tone very well/at all?
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 13:10 |
|
|
EDIT: Yay wrong window
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 15:57 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:Am I right in remembering that RC paper doesn't tone very well/at all? I forget, honestly, but I don't know why it wouldn't. Toner reacts with the silver in the emulsion, not the paper base. Scratch that, I just remembered that it is in fact  highly dangerous and your chemistry will catch on fire. Definitely don't do it.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 16:53 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:I forget, honestly, but I don't know why it wouldn't. Toner reacts with the silver in the emulsion, not the paper base. Anything to do with RC paper that doesn't involve contact prints can cause very dangerous reactions (to McMadCow) It tones, but really what's the point? Costs money and takes time and RC paper is not worth it
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 17:01 |
|
|
mysticp posted:Anything to do with RC paper that doesn't involve contact prints can cause very dangerous reactions (to McMadCow) I think the dangerous reaction is more from McMadCow. I know he threatened me repeatedly. I definitely going to try some selenium toning this summer, the ventilation in my darkroom is definitely not good enough to deal with something that toxic. In the mean time I need to build up a supply of prints worth toning.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 17:37 |
|
|
So when I buy some fiber paper do I want warm tone or normal and glossy or matte? I've read matte is better for b&w digital printing, but I don't know if it matters for traditional printing. I plan on buying selenium toner and using that as well, because that seems to be what people use.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 21:06 |
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So when I buy some fiber paper do I want warm tone or normal and glossy or matte? I've read matte is better for b&w digital printing, but I don't know if it matters for traditional printing. I always get regular tone fiber glossy. You can make your tone slightly warmer by changing your developer dilution, but I always like the coldest tones possible. Also, matte paper won't get the same fully rich blacks that glossy gets. So if you like a higher contrast print it won't work for you.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 22:18 |
|
|
Thanks a lot for the help everyone that's answered my questions. I'll buy this then: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...V_FB_Fiber.html
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 22:51 |
|
|
That's great paper. It's almost the industry standard in fiber paper now.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 23:12 |
|
|
One thing about matte vs. glossy, I first thought glossy fiber paper would be as crazy as glossy RC paper is, but it isn't. I would compare the "glossyness" of glossy fiber paper to that of pearl RC paper. Another disadvantage of matte fiber paper: It can be seriously hard to tell which side is emulsion and which is back by feel. I've wasted a bunch of test strips because I accidentally exposed the wrong side...
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 23:23 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:Scratch that, I just remembered that it is in fact
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2012 23:59 |
|
|
mysticp posted:That's great paper. It's almost the industry standard in fiber paper now. I have a place in my heart for Bergger. I just wish it wasn't so expensive
|
| # ? Feb 29, 2012 00:16 |
|
|
have any of you done cyanotypes? I found some potassium ferricyanide in my university's darkroom, wasn't really sure how it was done/ if it is worth it
|
| # ? Feb 29, 2012 00:24 |
|
|
modulartribe posted:have any of you done cyanotypes? I found some potassium ferricyanide in my university's darkroom, wasn't really sure how it was done/ if it is worth it I do cyanotypes all the time (I coated some paper last night even). You need Ammonium Iron Citrate to finish the sensitizer though. Is it in powder form? I'm not an expert but I can write up a how-to for you if you'd like. I think cyanotypes are fun, I want to try my hand at salt prints next.
|
| # ? Feb 29, 2012 00:44 |
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:I do cyanotypes all the time (I coated some paper last night even). You need Ammonium Iron Citrate to finish the sensitizer though. Is it in powder form? yeah it was in the powder form. Is there a specific type of photography that it works best for. I'm guessing it works better with fiber based and not RC... That would be cool if you wrote up a how to for me/anyone else who sees this on here and is interested
|
| # ? Feb 29, 2012 00:55 |
|
|
modulartribe posted:yeah it was in the powder form. Is there a specific type of photography that it works best for. I'm guessing it works better with fiber based and not RC... That would be cool if you wrote up a how to for me/anyone else who sees this on here and is interested I use Strathmore Bristol Vellum that I get at Hobby Lobby on the cheap. I don't know about using negatives, this is the closest to darkroom printing that I've ever done. What I do is assemble a contact sheet of elements in Photoshop that I have printed out at Fed-Ex Office on overhead transparencies. They look like this:  Cyanotype Contact Sheet by ThisQuietReverie, on Flickr  Cyanotype Contact Sheet by ThisQuietReverie, on Flickr and then I cut them up and reassemble them with tape to make this:  Baby Smashmouth by ThisQuietReverie, on Flickr  Jack by ThisQuietReverie, on Flickr I don't own any film cameras but I assume the process of doing a normal print is pretty similar. All the crap you except the cyanotype powders themselves can be purchased locally. I have a super ghetto garage setup but that is part of the appeal. It's pretty easy to do them, just time consuming. It will be a rather lengthy how-to so it will take some time for me to prepare it.
|
| # ? Feb 29, 2012 01:28 |
|
|
nielsm posted:Another disadvantage of matte fiber paper: It can be seriously hard to tell which side is emulsion and which is back by feel. I've wasted a bunch of test strips because I accidentally exposed the wrong side... I have found if you take your finger nail and gently scrape both sides the paper side is "smooth" the emulsion side is "stickier." After doing exactly what you're describing I found this method and have yet to f one up.
|
| # ? Feb 29, 2012 11:42 |
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:
|
| # ? Feb 29, 2012 12:22 |
|
|
So I did a few prints just to try out this fiber paper and evidently I'm a philistine as I can't tell a difference between the same print on fiber and rc. Maybe I have to wait for it dry to really appreciate it?
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 04:42 |
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I did a few prints just to try out this fiber paper and evidently I'm a philistine as I can't tell a difference between the same print on fiber and rc. Maybe I have to wait for it dry to really appreciate it? Rc has come a long way. You should wait for it to dry, but the difference is only really apparent (at least to me) for some prints, and even then some difficult areas within those prints. The main advantage of fiber is its archival stability
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 05:57 |
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Rc has come a long way. You should wait for it to dry, but the difference is only really apparent (at least to me) for some prints, and even then some difficult areas within those prints. The main advantage of fiber is its archival stability Fiber takes toning better too doesn't it? I have some selenium but I haven't used it yet.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 06:55 |
|
|
Yeah with fiber the tones sink in better and it is better for archiving, but it is true that RC has come a long way and for me at least the difference is hardly noticeable anymore. I think it really depends on what you are doing.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 11:33 |
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Rc has come a long way. You should wait for it to dry, but the difference is only really apparent (at least to me) for some prints, and even then some difficult areas within those prints. The main advantage of fiber is its archival stability modulartribe posted:Yeah with fiber the tones sink in better and it is better for archiving, but it is true that RC has come a long way and for me at least the difference is hardly noticeable anymore. I think it really depends on what you are doing. If this were a scene from a movie it would be Peregrin Took bumping the helmed skull down the well, followed by everyone looking pensively at each other, then the drum. Cut to a Belrog named McMadCow emerging, flaming whip, sword, and a bad attitude. Though in all seriousness I use RC paper to see if what I had in my head will come across on the paper, and I have been using to practice the dodging and burning I may need to do.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 13:25 |
|
|
Toning does seem to vary somewhat by paper. I tried some Fotokemika Varycon FB recently that didn't change color at all, but the Oriental Seagull paper I normally use definitely does. I suspect that some RC papers might work better than others. Re: FB v RC, I find that the finish on most glossy FB papers I've tried is just right. Glossy RC is *too* glossy for me. The Ilford Pearl finish stuff is pretty decent IMO, but I still much prefer handling FB. RC paper feels like I'm going to accidentally rip it.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 13:58 |
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Re: FB v RC, I find that the finish on most glossy FB papers I've tried is just right. Glossy RC is *too* glossy for me. The Ilford Pearl finish stuff is pretty decent IMO, but I still much prefer handling FB. RC paper feels like I'm going to accidentally rip it. You feel like you're going to accidentally rip the type of paper that is a sheet of plastic instead of the one that's a bunch of soggy wet wood pulp pressed together? 
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 16:17 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You feel like you're going to accidentally rip the type of paper that is a sheet of plastic instead of the one that's a bunch of soggy wet wood pulp pressed together? Maybe he means when they're dry? Fiber paper seems very strong now that I've felt it dry, but it did feel like I could easily tear it when it was wet.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 16:21 |
|
|
I'm having a hard time believing that someone can't tell the difference between glossy fiber and RC. Nerdy rage aside, they look nothing alike.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 17:21 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You feel like you're going to accidentally rip the type of paper that is a sheet of plastic instead of the one that's a bunch of soggy wet wood pulp pressed together? It sounds silly when you put it that way, but yeah. FB feels like cardboard, RC feels like paper.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 18:13 |
|
|
It's also worth remembering that you're just printing a picture onto some paper. Very, very few people in the real world have any conception of what a good B/W print looks like, much less have the ability to discren between paper types. If you can't tell the difference, do what you prefer process-wise.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 18:42 |
|
|
nielsm posted:
What I have learned to do is look at the reflections, or whatever you would consider them, of a safelight on each of the sides. The non-emulsion side will usually be the shinier side, which makes sense when you think of diffusion. In other news I just bought some more fiber paper, it has been way to long since I made any prints. Going to be my first time trying split filtering as well!
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 18:55 |
|
|
I just had a chance to buy a Bresler 23CIII with a Dual Dichro II head for $20. Should I be kicking myself for not getting it, even though it doesn't handle 4X5 negatives and that's what I want to print?
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2012 21:19 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 03:13 |
|
|
Spedman posted:There is a 1/d^2 relationship with light intensity with distance (d) for light emanating from a source, so if you've moving the head up twice the distance for 35mm from the position for the 6x6, you'll need 4x the exposure length. So I was looking at the enlarger again and it has a voltage regulator that was turned up all the way and that seems to be making the light brighter so I can turn it down to get longer times. Is there a voltage on the meter I should be aiming for it? All the way up it's at like 112 volts.
|
| # ? Mar 4, 2012 05:16 |
|
