Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,971   Posts: 1,558,664   Online: 1024
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    mryoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Land of the Summer People, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    71
    I have a Patterson safelight like this one
    http://www.photographyattic.com/product-496
    Its kind of not Red as in bright red, but exactly as the pic above
    I will test the light as you described tomorrow,

    As for the developer, i tried 2 different ones,
    First Suprol
    Second Ilford MG Developer,
    this did make the dark parts of the image slightly lighter maybe 1/4 stop as a guess.
    Both fresh.
    When your dead, None of this Matters.
    Film- Nikon F65, Sigma 28-80mm Macro Lens, Canon EOS 50E with Canon 28 - 80mm Lens
    Yashica-A (my new fav)

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    402
    Hallo,

    I do not use colour head filtration so this suggestion should be taken with a pinch of salt but if equal amounts of the colours (c/m/y) are added, in addition to that needed for contrast, would that add a neutral density element into the light path? This might enable longer print times.
    Thoughts on this suggestion by all welcomed.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,051
    Based on my experience if you are using fresh Ilford MG developer then you can eliminate the developer as a cause of your problem.

    Secondly and again based on my experience if you process your film exactly as the developer maker suggests you do then the negs should not come out as dark as yours have and they should have a normal range of contrast so at the usual range of grades(2-3) the prints shouldn't look flat, provided that there is nothing wrong with camera exposure.

    I am puzzled as to why you are experiencing an issue. Have you tried other negs that look OK with Kentmere paper? I would try other negs and I'd send my problem neg to Simon Galley. The conclusions that Ilford reach about the neg and how to print it correctly might be the quickest way to resolve the problem.

    pentaxuser

  4. #24
    mryoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Land of the Summer People, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    71
    I am no expert, but as you can see, i haven't made a thread like this for the Ilford paper
    Every time i use Kentmere paper i get issues like this.
    The first prints in the thread were taken using a Nikon F65 on full auto
    The negative scan came from a Canon EOS 50E but i increased agitation by at least 5x so the neg wasn't as thin

    Although my enlarger timings are the same for both papers, prints using ilford papers always come out usable.
    Out of this box of 100 i have used 30 pieces and totaly wasted 28 of them
    only 2 came out reasonable, even these are close to blowing out the whites and are more grey than i would like.



    Steam Engine


    Milverton Church Entrance
    When your dead, None of this Matters.
    Film- Nikon F65, Sigma 28-80mm Macro Lens, Canon EOS 50E with Canon 28 - 80mm Lens
    Yashica-A (my new fav)

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    984
    "My enlarger timings are the same for both papers" -- the Kentmere paper is at least a stop faster than Multigrade. If you use the same exposure under the enlarger and pull the print too soon then you are going to have a low-contrast, grey result like you showed above. As a guide to a starting time with any combination of negs and paper, make a 10x8 contact sheet using Grade-2 so that the filmbase is only just different to black (ie. so that you can only just see the sprocket holes). If always done in the same way, this will give you a start point for deciding if your negs are ok. It 'should' be possible to make a reasonable work-print at that size and exposure and if not it gives you a baseline from which you can adjust things.

    It also sounds as though there is something unusual about the exposure of the film. Try using the camera manually so you know how it is actually metering, compare that with a good light-meter (or even sunny-16), then develop according to the manufacturers instructions. Rodinal is sensitive to agitation and will change the contrast of the negative a fair bit depending on exactly what you do, so try using ID11 or something similar.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,869
    HARMAN technology Limited,
    Ilford Way,
    Mobberley,
    Knutsford,
    CHESHIRE.
    WA16 7JL

    FAO Simon Galley

    Bring on the neg, I will print it for you...

    Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

  7. #27
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,392
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinP View Post
    "My enlarger timings are the same for both papers" -- the Kentmere paper is at least a stop faster than Multigrade. If you use the same exposure under the enlarger and pull the print too soon then you are going to have a low-contrast, grey result like you showed above. As a guide to a starting time with any combination of negs and paper, make a 10x8 contact sheet using Grade-2 so that the filmbase is only just different to black (ie. so that you can only just see the sprocket holes). If always done in the same way, this will give you a start point for deciding if your negs are ok. It 'should' be possible to make a reasonable work-print at that size and exposure and if not it gives you a baseline from which you can adjust things.

    It also sounds as though there is something unusual about the exposure of the film. Try using the camera manually so you know how it is actually metering, compare that with a good light-meter (or even sunny-16), then develop according to the manufacturers instructions. Rodinal is sensitive to agitation and will change the contrast of the negative a fair bit depending on exactly what you do, so try using ID11 or something similar.
    This is really good advice. And Rodinal is sensitive for sure, very powerful. Making contact sheets - on the same paper we use to print, is really valuable for someone beginning.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #28
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,392
    Images
    299
    I guess I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a problem with your safelight.

    Based on the last two pictures you uploaded that shouldn't be a problem.

    Are you developing your prints to completion? Or do you pull them from the developer when they 'look right'?

    Quote Originally Posted by mryoda View Post
    I have a Patterson safelight like this one
    http://www.photographyattic.com/product-496
    Its kind of not Red as in bright red, but exactly as the pic above
    I will test the light as you described tomorrow,

    As for the developer, i tried 2 different ones,
    First Suprol
    Second Ilford MG Developer,
    this did make the dark parts of the image slightly lighter maybe 1/4 stop as a guess.
    Both fresh.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #29
    mryoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Land of the Summer People, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    71
    I always develop to completion these days, no matter how dark they get
    I used to pull them when the looked right, but not now
    They are in the developer for at least 60 secs and sometimes 90 secs...

    I put them in the ilfostop for 30 secs and then Ilford Rapidfix for 1 min. ( Simon can you make a non smelly version lol )
    When your dead, None of this Matters.
    Film- Nikon F65, Sigma 28-80mm Macro Lens, Canon EOS 50E with Canon 28 - 80mm Lens
    Yashica-A (my new fav)

  10. #30
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,392
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by mryoda View Post
    I always develop to completion these days, no matter how dark they get
    I used to pull them when the looked right, but not now
    They are in the developer for at least 60 secs and sometimes 90 secs...

    I put them in the ilfostop for 30 secs and then Ilford Rapidfix for 1 min. ( Simon can you make a non smelly version lol )
    It will be interesting to see what Simon comes up with. Maybe you should send him a light proof envelope with some of the paper you are using too, so he could print using the same paper.

    Have you tried making contact sheets the way it was described by Martin(?) above?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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