Printable View
Hopefully these aren't silly questions....but:Quote:
Originally Posted by keithwms
1) To get proper exposure, could you possibly just meter the enlarged image on the easel (white) and get proper exposure?
2) Is it possible to use a color head to have more contrast control?
As I mentioned above the x-ray duplicating film is like making a paper print. Obviously the better the negative you start with the less you might have to burn and/or dodge. Most of my exposures are also in the 3 minute range (depending on the density of the original). Make a test as you would a test print. The GBX chemistry is available from dental supply houses and is good for about a month once diluted to make the working solution. A few years ago I enlarged and printed a limited edition - 12 numbered prints each of 4 images for the photographer Mario Algaze from his 2 1/4x2 1/4 negatives. He is an internationally known and collected photographer. It was quite an experience but the results were exquisite.
I don't do photography for a living and doubt that I will print for someone else again ... who needs that stress. I'd rather just have to please myself.
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
I forgot to mention they were pt/pd/au prints.
Yes, I suppose that you could, but what I do is just sacrifice one piece of film and make test strips from it. And then I determine optimal exposure and development just like I would for paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
Not for contrast control. It won't work like MG paper, if that's what you're asking. But there are many other ways to control contrast, e.g. by fine-tuning exposure and development, by dodge and burn, by bleaching and SLIMT (which I haven't done, but why not). Colour filters will allow you to play with with tones correspond to particular colours, so a colour head will be nice to play with (I don't have one).Quote:
2) Is it possible to use a color head to have more contrast control?
Not sure why you'd pick f/1, but otherwise it sounds good. As I just mentioned, my own approach is just quick trial and error. Your approach will be better, once you work out the details. I had the idea just to take a camera in the darkroom, project the slide on a standard surface (grey?) and meter accordingly. But in practice I find that I waste very little film in doing a few tests and it's a good safety check for developer and fixer too.Quote:
Originally Posted by holmburgers
This is really easy, and it gives a lot of new possibilities. I won't name them all now but let's just say that you can be very creative with enlarger and your wet processing.
Note that if you don't use a pan film then good tonality will be hard to nail down. For some images it's okay, for others... blah. I have been using tmax.
Sounds solid. I do have a color head, so I was wondering if you had experimented with it. Just was curious because I know for different alt processes, one needs different contrast curves.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithwms
You could be more meticulous than I and do step wedge tests and nail everything down very well. I should do that, as much as I blab about this. But I honestly haven't had much difficulty getting good enlarged negs just by exposing a few test strips. Granted, I am probably more interested in seeing unexpected results than generating reproducible ones, that is just the way my head is shaped.
Well, I am of that same family. Meticulous, repeatable, and technical are not words most people use when they see me work (say it about the end result, though). You should see me cook or brew beer!
As a note: I will be performing both enlarging negatives, enlarging positives, and enlarging positives onto wet plate in the near future and will hopefully have a bunch of insight for those looking to do the same.
Well, f/1 is effectively no aperture, which is what you'd need at the baseboard; as though you were metering at the film plane in a camera instead of the scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithwms