|
I've been wanting to turn my horrible negatives into larger printed versions for a while. I think I have everything I need to do my own B&W prints, except maybe some chemicals and paper. I am a horrible procrastinator so I haven't even bothered trying yet. Do you use fixed contrast paper or variable contrast? I have a bunch of Ilford contrast filters and I am wondering if I need to use them or not.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
I went through 3 or 4 different enlargers over the course of a year before I found one that didn't have any missing attachments. I got them all for free. Right now I have a Durst 609 which I like because it's small and I don't have much space for anything larger. I have everything else, I think. Trays, tongs, timer, safelight, even a dryer. I used to have an Omega C700 with a Nikkor lens, which was a huge beast, but unfortunately I just didn't have the space for it. Turns out they still sell for $500 brand new.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
i thought it was a matrix reference tbh
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Are dusty negs as big of a problem with wet printing as they are with scanning? Or worse?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
I cleared out some space in my basement to make a printing area finally I found out that the base of my enlarger is warped as hell so I am going to have to get a new piece cut out of MDF or something. This enlarger is set up to do 35mm prints, but it was originally sold as a 6x9 MF enlarger. The stuff required to do 35mm was all sold separately (50mm lens, condenser attachment, and negative carrier). It's a shame because if I had the original lens and carrier, I could be set up to do both. It came with a bulb but it looks like a standard household bulb. Is that fine, or should I be using something special?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Can you do all your testing on cheaper paper and then do the final print on the good stuff? Or does the type of paper affect the outcome?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
I went and bought paper and developer today so I could finally try making my first print, and holey moley did I fail spectacularly. I measured out all my chems and poured them into trays, and I set up my negative in the enlarger to get it focused properly, then my safelight burns out. So I was pretty bummed and didn't want to waste the chems, so I checked out what kind of ghetto safelight I could use in a pinch. I ended up deciding to try a flashlight app and simply using the red setting. People on forums say this is not safe, because the LCD screen emits other wavelengths, not pure red, but I bounced it off a wall in hopes it would mitigate the issue. I took my paper out in complete darkness just in case the iphone app ended up ruining the paper. While trying to figure out all of this mess, I completely forgot to load a filter into the enlarger, and also forgot to stop down the lens.  So my print came out completely black. It also looks like my easel has light leaks around the edges and the exposure bleeds into the white border. I am not going to try again until I get a proper safelight I guess. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:I'd say the hardest part is getting used to your setup/routine and getting into the rhythm (particularly if you've never done it before or haven't done it in a while.) Definitely. I went through 5 sheets tonight before I got the routine somewhere half memorized. I also think the focus on my enlarger shifts slightly when I stop down after focusing unless I am extremely careful. I am worried it'll also jostle the enlarger too much when I eventually have to switch out filter for split grade prints. BTW I went to Rona and bought a 60W (equivalent) red CFL bulb and did a coin test for about 3 minutes. Works perfect as a safelight.  This was 7 seconds at f8 with the #2 filter. A little too contrasty but I am guessing that could be fixed with split grading. Yes I screwed up the alignment in the easel too. Scan as comparison, taken with my Stylus Epic: 
BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
I would call this my first successful split grade attempt Not as contrasty as the original print I posted but not as flat as the film scan. I ended up going with 8 seconds using filter #0 and 2 seconds using filter #5. Wet printing owns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
I did two test strips, one for each filter. 8 seconds with #0 looked good for the highlights so I left it at that. At first I thought 4 seconds with #5 looked good but the shadows were still a bit too dark so I ended up making another print at only 2 seconds. That's just what I ended up with. I shot it on some expired Kodak Plus-X 125 using my Olympus Stylus Epic with available light (no flash). The negative looks properly developed. Edit: I mean the print turned out, so really, what's going on? BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
I did it exactly how you described except yes, I had the filters swapped and did #0 first. I read a guide that said the order doesn't matter and in fact followed a tutorial that did #0 first. But your explanation does make sense. This is the tutorial I followed: http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21 This guy gets a shorter #5 exposure just like I did, which I guess must be normal when the filters are swapped.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Well it gives me something to try anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Found a pretty insane score tonight for basically zero money. I was looking for an enlarger that I can use for both 35mm and 6x9, and came across an ad for "various darkroom equipment". I saw there was an enlarger in the photos so I stopped by to check it out since it wasn't very far. Turns out the guy was the manager of an apartment building and evicted a woman who had a whole darkroom setup. Apparently he had been holding onto this stuff for two years before finally getting around to selling it. Everything seems to be in good shape except for a lot of dust. The enlarger is a Beseller 23C II with a 50mm and 80mm lens All kinds of other miscellaneous crap like safelights, trays and tongs, etc. But one thing I found kind of insane was the amount of photo paper there was:  Most of these boxes are at least half to 3/4 full and well wrapped in light tight plastic bags. I am assuming the numbers ranging 2-5 on each box signify this is fixed contrast paper? What are the chances I could still use this stuff using modern chemicals? There was also some prints sandwiched between the paper boxes which you can see in the picture. Along with that is 3 rolls of exposed but undeveloped HP4 120, and a box of about a dozen ektachrome slides in excellent shape. Gonna have to get this stuff scanned for the found art thread. There is just so much miscellaneous stuff that I still have to dig through and figure out what it all is. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Awesome, good to hear. It's likely decades expired, judging by everything else I found in those boxes. A quick search says it's probably still usable, but the sheets on the outer edges of each box might be fogged or yellowed. I'll have to take a few samples out and check.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Tonight I tried some of that expired Ilfobrom FB paper. The box of 5x7 grade 2 paper was actually unopened, but was kind of warped so getting it in the easel was tricky, but it's still good! At first I wasn't too impressed with the image but after it had longer to dry, it started to really look nice. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
I place the curve downward against the easel surface, so it doesn't mess up my focus. The easel borders do a good job holding the edges flat too. And of course once it hits the developer, it all flattens out. Tonight I tried some of that 8x10 Ilfobrom and so far all of it seems to be coming out perfectly. Not sure if there was any degradation since it was first purchased, but I'm getting good results and I can't complain at all. The box I tried has a "velvet stipple" finish and it's really really nice. Which brings me to my next question. The 5x7 FB prints I made the other night ended up with an insane curl by morning. I'm just hanging them to air dry overnight. Is there anything special I can do to fix this or should I just sandwich them between some books for a few days? I have one of those paper dryers that you sandwich the prints between fabric and chrome but I gotta do some maintenance on it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
I made a significant upgrade to my setup last week. I found a Beseler 23C II with a dichro 23dga head on it, so now I can use it for color prints if I ever want to do that in the future. It also came with a 6x9 negative carrier, so I got to see what medium format prints look like. Holy poo poo, the detail. I enlarged some Ilford Pan F+ 50 film up to 8x10 and there's zero grain, and the edges look sharper than any digital print I've seen. I want to try 11x14, but I don't have trays large enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Possibly cheaper than x-ray film, has anyone tried making blueprint paper photos? You use the paper in place of film and it produces a positive image when developed in ammonia.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Wet printing is such a time sink. I had three free hours tonight and I wanted to make a bunch of prints, but I only got two done. And they're not even what I would consider good enough. Split grading takes so much time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
In an effort to keep this thread from falling into archives... I have a couple rolls I shot this summer that I kinda screwed up developing, and I am not sure if the camera's meter was off also, but the negatives came out either over exposed or over developed, or both. Not sure. Something weird happens when I try split grading. If do the shadows first with a 00 filter and it actually seems to develop most if not all of the entire image including midtones but leaves the highlights pure white (as expected). My exposures for the shadows are usually in the range of 15-20 seconds. Then if I expose it for as little as 1 or 2 seconds with a 5 filter for the highlights, it seems to affect the whole image, even darkening the shadows and midtones further. I found it's easier to do the inverse and start with the 5 filter so I get the highlights how I want them, then just a short blast of the 00 filter fills in the shadows nicely. I am probably doing something wrong, but my properly exposed and developed negatives aren't this finicky. Should I experiment with different grades than 00 and 5? I also tried making BW prints from color negatives, and they came out pretty good. Super long exposure times required, though. Here is A Barn:   I also got 11x17 trays and my enlarger is *just* tall enough to project that large. So now I only need to take photos nice enough to justify the waste of paper.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Thanks! 30 seconds at filter 00 and 4 seconds at filter 5 F11 on a 100mm lens, not sure if that makes a difference. I was also using a 6x9 neg and the print is only 5x7.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Yeah I guess that's relative. I am used to exposures in the 8-10 second range. According to Ilford, BW prints from color should require exposures 3-4 times longer than normal, so I guess my experience is accurate. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Yeah I kinda realized that I mixed something up when I was typing it out. Was waiting for somebody to correct me, thanks for the reminder. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Nice, I need to experiment more I think. I find that even though I am using RC paper, the prints have too little contrast after they've hung to dry for a couple hours vs when I first take them out of the rinse bath. Also I think 3 sheets per print is pretty common. I need to start getting used to using test strips to conserve.
BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
It's good for learning. Plus I picked up about 1000 sheets of it in various sizes, expired, but still works good. When I'm ready to make actual Art, I'll buy the good stuff. I actually have quite a bit of Ilfrobrom FB paper, too. I made some test prints with it and it is indeed amazing quality, but I don't think any of my photos are worth wasting it on yet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
I read that assuming your C-41 film is stored properly, exposed properly, and developed properly, that once you dial in the proper settings for any one type of film stock, you can re-use those CMY settings for any of the same film stock. Any truth to that, or is that just an "in theory, but never happens in practice" kind of thing? I have everything I need to do RA-4 at home except for the paper and chemistry, but I'll have to do it at room temp in trays and I don't know how successful that would be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
How many prints do you guys get out of one session, and do you feel bad about dumping dev mix after each session if it's not exhausted? Or do you reuse it for a few days? I can get maybe 5-6 prints done in a couple hours, including test prints, and that's apparently nowhere near exhausting the developer. I know developer is not terribly expensive, but I still feel crummy to waste it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Nothing too exciting but I tried making prints using some mixed developer I had stored in a bottle since last summer, and I think it came out just fine considering how many people tell you not to use old developer. I gotta pay more attention to alignment though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 20:37
|
|