|
|
|
-
Thanks Denise, that's just what I wanted to hear!
It may be several days before I can post the results of more testing, but I certainly will.
thanX again :-)
-
 Originally Posted by tim_bessell
Yes, I guess it is low in contrast, if you consider the dMax is only 1.63. But here is the kicker. I have printed a negative that was made for a Kallitype and it looks pretty good for a first, quick, and dirty attempt.
As I mentioned above I would like to experiment with the developer to try and adjust contrast to suit the negative I wish to print.
Do you think that's possible?
The emulsion is Denise's 1A from the Light Farm without add KI.
... and thank you for your comments.
Tim;
The KI might boost contrast, or the contrast might be low due to the type of salt that you used. Sea salt often has other positive ions that can affect the grain type (good or bad).
The amount of silver coated is also critical to contrast and dmax, and that might be another source of the low dmax and low contrast.
But, as you say, it makes good pictures and that is what counts.
This is a takeoff on an early pure chloride emulsion without the active gelatin so that is another factor in speed, contrast and dmax.
If you wish to raise contrast, adjust the gap (undercut) in your coating blade. With that formula the gap can be from 5 mil to 10 mil and as you go up, contrast and dmax will go up due to the rising level of silver.
If you cannot get everclear, you will find that i-propyl alcohol will work as long as it does not have any of the denaturing ingredients that cause it to become cloudy when added to water.
PE
-
thanX for the ideas PE.
I did understand that potassium iodide would raise contrast and that is why I omitted it as a final addition. That and my interest in chloride emulsions.
The speed is pretty fast, my exposures with a 40 watt bulb, 32 in. from the print frame are 16 sec. Could almost be an enlarging paper.
Right now I am using an .008 gap on the blade; earlier attempts using .005 and .006 gave me very uneven coatings. Of course, you learn and modify your methods as you go to get results you want. So I am still in the very early stages of sorting out the basic techniques.
-
My exposure time is less than 1/2 that with about the same conditions.
By tests, my paper is 5 stops slower than enlarging paper on-easel.
As for the uneven coatings, did you use any Photo Flo? Lack of a surfactant can cause some sever problems in coating. Denise uses Photo Flo 600 and I use Photo Flo 200. They differ by a factor of 3 in concentration and one uses EG, while the other uses PG for lower toxicity (PF 200). I use PF 200 due to the lower toxicity and also the fact that I can use 3x the amount and this leads to better accuracy in repeat experiments. It is hard to measure a half drop. 
PE
-
PE -- I use Photo-flo 2100. Anything I should be looking out for with that one?
Vaughn
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by Vaughn
PE -- I use Photo-flo 2100. Anything I should be looking out for with that one?
Vaughn
It is merely a matter of EG vs PG and toxicity and also the ability to measure tiny quantities.
PE
-
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
It is merely a matter of EG vs PG and toxicity and also the ability to measure tiny quantities.
PE
Thanks, PE -- I should have looked it up first.
I mix 7 oz. with water to make a gallon of stock solution, then the students take one oz. of the stock to make a gallon of working solution. Very strange stuff.
Contains OCTYLPHENOXYPOLYETHOXYETHANOL, which according to the MSDS, does not sound too bad (keep it out of the eyes and the concentrate off the skin.) Also, POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL -- I assume that is the PG you referred to.
Vaughn
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
-
PEG = Polyethylene Glycol but PG can equal Propylene Glycol and PPG is Poly Propylene Glyol. The Ethylene derivatives are more toxic than the Propylene derivatives. EG = Ethylene Glycol. Propylene derivatives are safe even as food additives but the Ethylene derivatives are deadly poisons and cause kidney failure.
I am not sure how the polymers stack up vs the monomers of these glycols regarding overall toxicity.
PE
-
-
I tend to avoid drinking darkroom chemicals, or, breathing deeply as if we were talking about fresh apple pie (although I have to fight the temptation with fix -- yes, I'm one of those  ).
I actually don't use particularly small quantities of PF600, but it does bring up an important topic in emulsion making. There are many chemicals that are used in very, very small quantities, especially when you scale down for home darkroom-sized recipes. The solution to the problem is to make a solution, i.e. mix a quantity of the chemical that can be accurately weighed with your particular weighing apparatus with water, most easily 1 liter, and then add the number of mls of the %-solution that will give you the miniscule amount called for in the recipe. A Google search will give you all the details you could possibly need, or see Steve Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook (Disclaimer: Steve is a friend. Still, he's written a great book that I wouldn't be without.)
d
|
|
Adv Reply
