Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,783   Online: 908
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    534
    Images
    105
    I've only used Fineprint VC sparingly but I can imagine that it is badly affected by bright safelights. I printed the same image at grade 4.5 on Adox Polywarmtone, Fomatone MG Classic and Fineprint VC. The Adox required a 29 second exposure, the Fomatone 24 seconds and the Fineprint 2.25 seconds! That suggests to me that an overly bright safelight is going to cause all sorts of problems.

    Barry
    My website: Light Work

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SE.London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    547
    Check not only safelights but the under lens swing filter on the enlarger. Mine is orange and will fog Bergger and Foma paper's if I use it to view the projected image for more then just a few seconds! Although my enlarger lamps are very bright.

    Regards,
    Trevor.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woking, Surrey, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    475
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller View Post
    Better to do a safe light test as above or on the Ilford site. Les also describes such a test on his web site. It will give you a safe working time. In my case, with two 15w Ilford 902 fittings sited about 1.6m from my easel, this is about 15 mins with Kentmere paper.
    I followed the Kodak safelight test instructions this evening. Same even light-grey tone over the entire exposed paper area - so my lights are good up to at least 8 minutes using Kentmere Fineprint VC. I use a Nova processor, so the paper is almost never exposed to more than 2 minutes of safelight between packet and entering the fixer slot.

    I ignored my notes from the previous session, and started again with one of the same negatives which produced a disappointing dull print last time. For comparison I also printed the same negative on Fomatone MG classic.

    The prints are still washing, so the final test will of course have to wait until they dry. Side by side in the wash tray both look miles better than the old print but the Kentmere has a touch more "zing" to it, both look to have very little detail in the extreme highlights, but dry-down should separate these out.

    Conclusion: Nothing wrong with the paper or darkroom setup - I just need to improve my printing technique ;-)

    Ian

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    934
    Images
    115
    Out of curiosity I just tried a pack of kentmere fineprint glossy. When compared to prints done on ilford and varycon paper the kentmere prints seemed very dull and flat.

    To get similar looking prints, I had to print the negatives at grade 2.5 on varycon and ilford papers and grade 5 on the kentmere paper. I used the grade 5 setting for an LPL enlarger listed in kentmere's technical datasheet. I do not have any safelight issues in my darkroom as the varycon paper I use is very sensitive to these issues.

    Others swear by this paper but in the end I could not get the results I wanted from it.

    Regards,
    John

  5. #25
    Jack Lusted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Robertsbridge, East Sussex, UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    150
    Images
    13
    With regard to Kentmere Fineprint, in almost every instant I have had muddy prints it has been due to the developer. It has to be fresh and up to strength where as other papers (ie MG WT) I have found are much more forgiving.

    It took me several frustrating hours and much ruined paper to find this out!

    Jack

  6. #26
    digiconvert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cannock UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    809
    Images
    51
    After looking at the threads above I've tried an extended development time, 6 minutes at 22 deg C , the results are a LOT better - still needs work but far closer to what I want. Guess this paper takes a long time to develop the full blacks.
    Hmm- Wonder if she'd notice if I bought that :)

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woking, Surrey, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    475
    Images
    27
    Still happy with the print now it is dry. Forgot to mention in my last message that the contrast was quite different between Kentmere and Fomatone papers. Absolute times are meaningless of course because of the difference in paper speed, but to produce two similar looking prints from the same negative Fomatone MG classic needed 20s G0 + 50s G5, Kentmere Fineprint VC needed 4s G0 + 20s G5. Kentmere needs a lot more G5 to bring out the deep blacks.

    Ian

  8. #28
    jeroldharter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,958
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan160 View Post
    Still happy with the print now it is dry. Forgot to mention in my last message that the contrast was quite different between Kentmere and Fomatone papers. Absolute times are meaningless of course because of the difference in paper speed, but to produce two similar looking prints from the same negative Fomatone MG classic needed 20s G0 + 50s G5, Kentmere Fineprint VC needed 4s G0 + 20s G5. Kentmere needs a lot more G5 to bring out the deep blacks.

    Ian
    Those print times seem unusual, not so much the absolute times but the relative proportions of grade 0 and grade 5. I have the occasional print that is made on almost all grade 5 (magenta) filtration but that would be a very flat negative on an overcast day that I am trying to punch up. With normal circumstances the times are about the same (realizing that the paper is less responsive to magenta light). I think you need to increase the development time of your negative. I use TMAX 100 film developed in TMAX RS developer using BTZS testing methods.
    Jerold Harter MD

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woking, Surrey, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    475
    Images
    27
    I guess I need to print the same negative on Ilford MGIV and see what contrast is required - I'm not familiar enough with Kentmere or Foma papers to have a good feel for them yet.

    The relative G0/G5 times on Fomatone seem like about normal contrast grade (the data sheet indicates a lower speed at the harder grade), it's just odd how hard I've had to print to get a similar image on the Kentmere paper.

    Ian

  10. #30
    hka
    hka is offline
    hka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan160 View Post
    Still happy with the print now it is dry. Forgot to mention in my last message that the contrast was quite different between Kentmere and Fomatone papers. Absolute times are meaningless of course because of the difference in paper speed, but to produce two similar looking prints from the same negative Fomatone MG classic needed 20s G0 + 50s G5, Kentmere Fineprint VC needed 4s G0 + 20s G5. Kentmere needs a lot more G5 to bring out the deep blacks.

    Ian
    I agree. I use the same method to get the deep blacks in Kentmere. Mostly after finishing the right proofprint I give it still an extra 3 or 5 seconds @ G5 sometimes only locally. After toning in an D-Max enhencer the blacks are realy nice.
    harry

    Release, the best you can do...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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