Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,954   Posts: 1,586,011   Online: 677
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,093
    Quote Originally Posted by jbaphoto View Post
    I recommend Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner, unfortunately no longer made, but there is quite a bit about
    Do you have a reference for this being discontinued?
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  2. #12
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    KRST won't do squat for a very thin neg. Neither will chromium (I have some and can attest). Neither is particularly good for "saving" a very thin neg, they will merely make a thin neg more easily printable.

    Know the curve; become the curve; use the curve Paper has a narrow range and you'll bang your head against a wall trying to rescue something with that and dektol.

    There is a impure, filthy, disgusting, sacreligious, non-analogue solution as well, and I will mention it only once in this analogue forum so pay attention! What you do is scan at the highest bit depth you can, auto-level, inkjet print a positive image to a glossy paper with no watermarks, and contact print that back to film to make a contact-printable enlarged neg.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  3. #13
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    Do you have a reference for this being discontinued?
    My Australian seller told me it is no longer available, if it is available in Canada or south of the border it will reinforce my belief that Australia is a third world country

    Please let me know
    John
    Quinninup
    Last edited by John Austin; 02-29-2012 at 07:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,087
    I had what appeared to be very thin negative that actually printed just fine with a grade 2.5 filter. My suggestion is to print as normal and see what it looks like. (shorter exposure time, of course)

    Is it thin because it was under exposed or is it because it was under developed? (or both?)
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    I have a friend who told me he used to put a blank, developed negative over the thin one to tame it down. He says he got a flatter result and that he had to play with contrast a bit but got the prints.

    I haven't done this but he sounded convincing.
    - Bill Lynch

  6. #16
    Jon Shiu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Elk, California
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    2,593
    Images
    33
    In my experience, the Ilford RC pearl or glossy paper will give a brighter, contrastier print than FB.

    Jon
    Mendocino Coast Black and White Photography: www.jonshiu.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Linköping, Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    89
    Images
    13
    Thanks everyone!

    I think that grade 5, a careful straight print and some dodging/burning is the way to go. Sadly I don't have access to any bleach and the negative isn't mine, so intensification is not really an option. Maybe it's time to read some more on bleach however, is it tricky to put together with household chemicals or should I go for more commercial alternatives?

    Edit: As for the negative - it's severely underdeveloped (we tried developing two tanks with the same caffenol in the same sitting, the first negatives came out too dense but printable and the second batch came out almost blank) but I think it's decently exposed. I remember we used the same exposure and the day was overcast and gray, and my negatives came out dense but printable and a few of them printed beautifully on an old glossy Orwo-paper I found in the darkroom.
    Last edited by Oscar Carlsson; 03-01-2012 at 01:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    883
    Oscar,

    Severely underdeveloped means low contrast. Shadow detail should be less affected, however. Check your shadows to see if there is detail there. Even if the underdevelopment slowed the film way down, you need to build contrast. Here's what I'd try:

    First, even before trying to print with grade 5, I'd bleach and redevelop in a staining developer. That means using a rehalogenating bleach (I use potassium ferrocyanide and potassium bromide), and bleaching the image away. The image silver turns to silver bromide, which can then be redeveloped. Using a staining developer like PMK for the redevelopment will add an additional stain image to the silver one there already, thereby increasing contrast and adding a bit of detail to the shadows. I've used this with good results in the past. I know you don't have bleach, but the above works well and is easy. Read up on it if you are interested.

    Toning the negative in selenium toner will give you about half a grade of contrast increase. It will also make bleach-redevelopment impossible, so it's one or the other, since toning a stained neg in selenium removes the stain... Anyway, KRST 1:2 for about 5 minutes should do the trick.

    Then, grade 5,and the contrastiest light source you can find. If you're using diffusion, try a condenser enlarger. Use your Dektol straight. All this will help you build contrast.

    If none of this works, maybe it's not worth it. If it is, then I'd go to hybrid next...

    An interneg is also a possibility. You can contact print onto film or paper and see what you get by varying development times. Unfortunately, if there is no shadow detail, you really can't save what's not there.

    Hope this helps some,

    Doremus

    www.DoremusScudder.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    My Australian seller told me it is no longer available, if it is available in Canada or south of the border it will reinforce my belief that Australia is a third world country

    Please let me know
    John
    Quinninup
    As you said there is lots available. And there is nothing on the web or at Kodak about discontinueings. Maybe your dealer was confusing toners
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin