Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,588   Posts: 1,545,872   Online: 1147
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,331
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Sattler View Post
    cliveh, your post "I would never use a squeegee and can't understand why they were ever suggested for photography."

    I use a very soft squeegee with a very light touch on film to remove and clumps of grain that can cause an imperfection on the print similar to a dust spot, learned this in an advanced printing workshop years ago.
    Perhaps I am not up to speed here, but isn't the grain within the suspension of the emulsion?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    64
    Last week everybody was telling me I was stupid for using Photoflo at 1:200 and should go 1:400, 1:800 or even a few drops to a gallon. Today it's 1:200. wtf?

  3. #33
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,658
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by pbromaghin View Post
    Last week everybody was telling me I was stupid for using Photoflo at 1:200 and should go 1:400, 1:800 or even a few drops to a gallon. Today it's 1:200. wtf?
    Most people find that using Photoflo at a much weaker solution works as well if not better than the dilution on the bottle. YMMD.

    Leigh -- Kodak Photoflo comes in 200, 600 and 2100. I use the 2100 at the university. I mix 7oz to make a gallon -- then use one oz of that to make a gallon of working solution.

    Vaughn
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  4. #34
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,863
    Images
    97
    Seems to be a bit of variation in process in the responses. My second suggestion would be to try the suggestions one at a time until you find a procedure that works. Then, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    FWIW, I've heard WWII reconnaissance aero photographers used to give their films a final soak in alcohol and then light it to dry the film quickly. But, I wouldn't try that at home.

  5. #35
    Ian David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,079
    Images
    16
    I love these threads about drying marks. Fifty different people will give you fifty different solutions to the problem. And another fifty will tell you they have never had anything but perfect negs all their lives, despite rinsing their films in the old dishwater and wiping dry on the end of their sleeve! (I have since discovered that some of those with perfect negs have just got low standards and/or poor eyesight!)

    Anyway, here's my two cents worth...

    In my experience, the marks appearing on your shots do look like they are caused by the wetting agent (PhotoFlo or Ilfotol). The sort of marks I used to get which looked like this were effectively in the emulsion, and once dry they were permanent. So cleaning the shiny side of the film does not help. For me, the solution involved mixing minimal wetting agent (much less than 1:200) with distilled water together with a dash of isopropyl alcohol in an open dish (as suggested by Les McLean). It is essential that the wetting agent is very thoroughly mixed in the water. My film is then see-sawed through the mixture a few times and hung to dry in the normal vertical fashion.

    Assuming your problem is the same, I think what works for you is likely to depend to some extent also on your local water supply and climate. I suggest experimenting with different amounts of wetting agent, and then watching very closely how well the water runs off the emulsion side of your films when you hang them up. If you can see any rivulets or evidence of viscosity, you may need to make some adjustments.

    Ian

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    18
    Thanks for the suggestions everyone. Going forward I will play with the amount of wetting agent used as well as consider getting a squeegee or something similar. Thanks again for the help.

  7. #37
    Saganich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    447
    Images
    176
    I hang film and spray both sides with distilled water using a squeeze bottle and a tray underneath to catch the runoff. Never have water marks or dust problems since i started. Also got off the photoflo habit, not enough dilution caused similar looking problems IMO.
    Chris Saganich
    http://www.imagebrooklyn.com

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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