Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,873   Posts: 1,520,160   Online: 1000
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Amongst the cornfields & rednecks of central Indiana
    Posts
    116
    I use a split-developer to enhance details in the highlights without blocking up the shadows in difficult-lighting shots. I use DIFFERENT developer's though. It's more of a 2-bath development with water bath (not for stopping though). In the first bath, I use LPD diluted 1:2 or 1:3 and I remove it as soon as I see the shadows appearing. Then, I water bath for about 15 seconds to allow that to finish up a bit. Then, I put the print into Selectol Soft (a surface developer) for about 2 minutes. This usually gets me a nice brownish-black look to prints without toning and it gets massive detail in the hightlights!

    Then, stop as usual and fix as usual. If I tone, it's usually gold or selenium toning. Usually for archival work, I will tone in selenium 1:40 for 10 minutes.

    The other way I do it is to mix the LPD with the selectol soft (not Selectol, but selectol SOFT) at 1:15 or 1:20. This does about the same, but the LPD burns off quickly and constantly needs replenishment. Any higher on the LPD and the effects of the SS is negated.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    South Pasadena, CA USA
    Posts
    470
    Les,

    Basically, it sounds like you do the same thing with split developing that you do with split grade printing: make the hardest possible and softest possible tools, and then mix and match from there.

    It also sounds like split developing really is just for graded papers, and split grade printing is better and more controllable and less subtle for VC papers, right?

    dgh

    David G Hall

  3. #13
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ May 3 2003, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>



    It also sounds like split developing really is just for graded papers, and split grade printing is better and more controllable and less subtle for VC papers, right?

    dgh </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I do use two bath development when I split grade print although when I use it is dependent on the exact tonality I require in the print that I&#39;m making. If I can&#39;t achieve the exact contrast I visualise with single bath developer and split grade printing I introduce other controls and one of them is two bath development. It may also be water bath development or flashing or even a combination of several different techniques.

    Sometimes I start making a print on VC using split grade but decide to change to graded and use water bath or hard and soft developers. I guess that what I&#39;m saying is to know what you want on the paper before you make a test strip and use whatever techniques are available to get the print you see in your minds eye.
    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Les McLean @ May 2 2003, 06:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> One significant difference between graded and VC papers is the response to toning. I think that some graded papers respond better to most toning. If you ever contemplate doing lith printing graded papers are also better than VC.

    For better control over the development of graded papers I frequently use two bath devlopers which gives me significant contrast control. Have a look at the article I have in the articles section of the link portal for a complete description. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I lith print with Afga M-2 (multi grade RC paper) all the time and I find that the developer is a bigger issue than the paper itself. I use their softer (sorry the identifying numbers excape) developer for greytone and their rapid access developer for lith and line work.
    Embrace **it! **it. . .just another name for fertilizer. . . Grow baby Grow!

  5. #15
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    THANK YOU LES McLean&#33;&#33;&#33;

    I read your cool article on two bath deveolpment and tried it. Although I am still waiting for them to dry, I know I have better results than I had the other day with a monobath developer. Here is my story. I keep an old Yashica TLR in the Jeep. I was at a boyscout camporee and I shot 2 rolls of film in terrible conditions. Shadowed faces, bright sunlight at mid day with single coated optics. So I used my split D23 to develop the film which does several things. It compensates for the high contrast, creates very good accutance and offers very smooth grain. The down side is that the negatives have poor overall contrast. Local contrast is very good and images appear very sharp&#33;. So I spent yesterday trying to make these images that were interesting but flat look good. No Joy on all senarios&#33;. So today I mixed up some D-65 (photoformulary Glycin - Ansco 130 like developer) Normal mix is 1A:1B:5water for fiber. I mixed the hard bath at 1:1:3 and the soft bath at 1:1:8. 1:1:7 is recommended for RC. I followed your instructions and I really see a sparkle. I will be spending some time with this now. I used grade 3 paper - I may be inspired now to try some grade 4&#33;

    I also have been comparing three different papers I have been using. Ilford Galarie Multibroam, Forte Forteza and Cachet RF - All in grade 3 with the same negs and developer. The Cachet is a little thinner and on drying it tends to wrinkle a little more. Being only available in glossy, it has a pretty high luster even when not ferrotyped. I have never been good at getting a great fiber glossy finish. The Ilford seemed almost a full f-stop faster than both the others and so-far seems to have the richest blacks in the glycin developer. The Forte and the Ilford seem a little harder than the Cachet. All seem pretty good - I still think I favor the Forte. I might change my mind though.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  6. #16
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    Frank,

    The thanks for me is that another door has been opened for you and I&#39;ve had a part to play, but your personal thanks are much appreaciated. You mention that you are waiting for your prints to dry to see if they still sparkle, if you take dry down into account when you make the print you KNOW that they will sparkle when dry. I&#39;ll ask Sean if I can give him an article on how to calculate dry down for the papers you use, it&#39;s too long to include as a post.

    Your observations on the three papers you are testing are just about the same as mine although I do not use Forte now because I find it inconsistent. I spoke to the production Director of the company about this problem at Photokina but he really was not interested, so I decided to stop using their products. It&#39;s a pity for it is an excellent paper but no good to me if I cannot be sure of the consistency.
    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

  7. #17
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Les McLean @ May 5 2003, 08:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your observations on the three papers you are testing are just about the same as mine although I do not use Forte now because I find it inconsistent. I spoke to the production Director of the company about this problem at Photokina but he really was not interested, so I decided to stop using their products. It&#39;s a pity for it is an excellent paper but no good to me if I cannot be sure of the consistency. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Well, so far so good on the Forte out here. I have not experienced any inconsistancy (but I have not used it in a lot of repeatable situations like you may have) The resluts last night were that I could not tell the difference from the Forte Forteza and the Ilford Galerie (Except for the speed.) The Cachet was the dry winner though. Its gloss lustre finish really added sparkle to the image. I have been using a lot of matte paper - The Forte gloss (un-ferrotyped) is nowhere nearly as shiny as this Cachet RF (un-ferrotyped). Other than that - The blacks ar no blacker on the Cachet - which is what I was hoping for based on their claim to have a much greater silver content. It was useful to try several papers at the same time to see how they veried - I had not done that before. It seems chemistry is a much larger variable than papers of similar make up. I do believe that at some point it is time to settle down with one and get good with it. I came full circle with 4x5 film. I bought a big box of TRI X after messing with HP5, APX100, FP4 and Tmax400 (used with PMK.) I think for a while it will be my only 4x5 B&W and maybe even for 6x6cm (used with DiXactol) as well. I may wind up adopting the Cachet RF - and then think of a reason to use matte finish at all. The jury is still out on developers. The D65 (glycin based ansco 130 like photoformulary brew) is OK I guess - kind of pricey compared to this Agfa paper developer I have been using for RC prints. It is a hydroquinone based brew and so far has really exceeded my expectations. It seems the glycin brews work on the highlights for the long haul where the commercial Agfa stuff gets it all done in a hurry and then stops. (I think). Of course a brilliant image makes them all look pretty good.

    Maybe I need to ask for my inheritance early and buy some Amidol. I would then be the "Prodigal Photographer" and have to beg my way back to Dektol some day.

    Thank again for all the good insight&#33; - Frank
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

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