Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,904   Online: 1103
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,845
    Images
    29
    The widest generally available RA4 colour paper was from Kodak. It came in various sizes but the largest size I ever used, was paper that was 6' wide by 100' long.

    The actual largest single one piece print I have ever done, is 6' wide by 18' long. This was around 23-24 years ago, things have changed somewhat.

    The roller transport developing machine was 6'6" wide, let me tell you that feeding in a piece of paper that long and wide in total darkness, was an art form by itself. The paper had to go in dead square, otherwise somewhere after the start, the edge of the paper would start meshing with the gears, which would firstly stuff the print up, and secondly, possibly jam the processor; real problems and time waster when that happened.

    If you do a search, you should find some threads regarding large prints.

    For wall projection with these sizes a metal wall is best, using magnets to hold the paper up. You must remember that all of this is done in total darkness and for a print of this size two people work in complete darkness to unload a specific length of paper, cut it with a Stanley knife, then affix it to the wall in the correct position. Exposure is often up to 10 or 15 minutes with very big enlargements. Familiarity with your co-worker, was an important pre-requisite to working in the darkroom with this kind of enlarging!

    The minimum negative size is 4x5" with 8x10" being preferable. By using copy internegative materials (no longer available) one could take a 35mm transparency and dupe it up to an 8x10" negative for enlargement.

    From start to finish often took a minimum of three days as checks and client approval was needed at every step of the way. The process is/was so expensive, mistakes had to be kept to a minimum.

    Mick.
    Last edited by Mick Fagan; 01-26-2012 at 08:04 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Spelling

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    131
    [QUOTE=Mick Fagan;1292798]The minimum negative size is 4x5" with 8x10" being preferable. By using copy internegative materials (no longer available) one could take a 35mm transparency and dupe it up to an 8x10" negative for enlargement.

    QUOTE]

    Ah! Internegative film - one of many very useful products that we could once buy from the nearest Kodak warehouse. OzJohn

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,820
    No big deal. Portra 160 will probably do as good for interneg work as the
    official film ever did, as long as Kodak itself is around. PE has some suggestions for using it, and I personally mask the chromes for high quality interneg work. I still have some fine-tuning to do with really harsh
    chromes like Velvia (the color can get a bit more exaggerated), but otherwise it's straightforward. A good copy lens like an Apo-Nikkor helps, a very good glass neg holder, and a vacuum 8x10 holder, or something equally flat, and a top notch easel grain magnifier.

  4. #24
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,845
    Images
    29
    John, we only ever had one warehouse in Australia for that material, which was in Melbourne, Sydney had a small warehouse for quickly moving products, but all graphic arts materials and fancy film processed materials, emanated from Melbourne.

    I may be wrong, but I remember our Sydney factory would sometimes get us to overnight ship materials to them, as Kodak weren't able to get it to them from their much smaller warehouse Sydney.

    Melbourne was actually a manufacturing plant and fed most of Asia their Kodak graphic materials as well as a 100/200 C41 colour negative material. Although the C41 film may have just been spliced in Melbourne; any ex Kodak employees out there?

    Mick.

  5. #25
    Danielle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by tomalophicon View Post
    Dunno what you guys are on about but I enjoy the sweet aroma of RA4 chemicals.


    Well, hopefully nothing. If someone knows for sure my paranoia with toxicity of the colour chemicals in open trays is nothing, tell me.
    All that really matters in the end is the image, not what your using to create it.

  6. #26
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,947
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle View Post
    Well, hopefully nothing. If someone knows for sure my paranoia with toxicity of the colour chemicals in open trays is nothing, tell me.
    Danielle:

    Note the instructions for tray development in Kodak publication J-39: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/j39/j39.pdf

    If you read through a variety of Kodak technical publications, you will realize that there will be specific and detailed warnings if certain chemistries or processes involve unusual safety concerns. J-39 includes no such warnings.

    It is not that care isn't required, but rather that the usual sort of care is sufficient.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,820
    Being flippant on a subject like chemical safety benefits nobody. All you've
    got to do is know as many "artistes" as I do who were macho with chemicals in their youth and now have deep regrets over ruined health, or know labowners who were put out of business due to accrued hypersensitivity. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who works with RA4 in
    open trays is a downright fool. Just because you don't get irritated with the smell doesn't make it safe. I've known people even working at the sales counter in labs getting sick over time. RA vapors and air suitable for breathing are two different things.

  8. #28
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,947
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    Being flippant on a subject like chemical safety benefits nobody. All you've
    got to do is know as many "artistes" as I do who were macho with chemicals in their youth and now have deep regrets over ruined health, or know labowners who were put out of business due to accrued hypersensitivity. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who works with RA4 in
    open trays is a downright fool. Just because you don't get irritated with the smell doesn't make it safe. I've known people even working at the sales counter in labs getting sick over time. RA vapors and air suitable for breathing are two different things.
    Drew and I agree on some things, and disagree on others. Care is required, but I do not believe that open trays are inherently dangerous. Working without gloves, and in particular where ventilation is inadequate would indeed be stupid and dangerous.

    I too know a very few people who have developed hypersensitivity, but they will to a man (or women) admit working in environments or using methods that are admittedly stupid.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Carbondale, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    224
    I print at max 30" wide cause that is as wide as the roller transport processor goes. But even then, I'm using a 10x10" enlarger to enlarge 4x5 & larger ektar and portra negs which are brutally sharp even at that amount of magnification. The enlarger goes through the drop tile ceiling and probably weighs 800lbs. So not the most accessible piece of equipment for the average home user.
    M. David Farrell, Jr.

    ----------------------------------------------
    ~Buying a Nikon doesn not make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner!

    ~Everybody has a photographic memory, but not everybody has film!

  10. #30
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,706
    Images
    14
    Mick has given you the answer I will add a few things of my own, seems like Mick and I have a few things in common.

    Kodak made monster RA4 roll paper , and a few labs worldwide had super size process capabilitys for RA4 processing, I believe Duggal in New York is still doing this. There has to be one in Europe as Stursky(sp) needs his prints somewhere.
    I worked at Jones & Morris in 1980 and we had a 72 inch processor and used Durst 2501 horizontal enlargers to make extremely large murals.
    We would even make panels that butted together would fill entire rooms.The best size negative would be 8x10 and we were able to work from original camera negative OK , otherwise the photographer would be compelled to use chrome and we would make 8x10 internegs. Kodak 6121 I believe eh Mick?
    I wonder if PE designed that emulsion, I sure used a lot of it in my youth.
    These super size prints Mick is describing were a daily thing, and we were very careful in the setup as he explains.
    To even consider RA4 in trays is like thinking about washing down a Rhino with a toothbrush.

    Today there is wide format inkjet machines and wide format Rhoe flatbed ink jet that can make super size prints but their quaility is nowhere near a RA4 optical print. YET, but with stitching Large Format Film.. oh shit here I go on the dark side again.
    I will admit they are getting much better and we will once again see a resurgence of monster prints from stitched large format capture done on a flatbed.
    The Durst Rhoe unit, right now has a 8 ft high by whatever length you can feed into it. therefore you could see at a gallery wall near you a single piece of imagery 96 inches by 40 ft or longer. The Durst Rhoe is basically a epson print head driven by a Lambda software.I have assess to one of these, print price 10k any takers.

    Plexi and sintra come in monster rolls of hugenormous size and can be imaged directly on... I suspect one of the usual characters(Sturky,Jordan....} will figure this possibility some day and make the big one. just stitch 20 8x10 films and slowly image onto the plexi or sintra, then overlaminate with hot lam... you heard it here first folks.....I can imagine one day the commercial side of my business would consider one of these suckers, but the 1/2million plus 30k per year service contract is not for me, I put down on a Lambda and not to willing to put another monster on my shoulder again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Fagan View Post
    The widest generally available RA4 colour paper was from Kodak. It came in various sizes but the largest size I ever used, was paper that was 6' wide by 100' long.

    The actual largest single one piece print I have ever done, is 6' wide by 18' long. This was around 23-24 years ago, things have changed somewhat.

    The roller transport developing machine was 6'6" wide, let me tell you that feeding in a piece of paper that long and wide in total darkness, was an art form by itself. The paper had to go in dead square, otherwise somewhere after the start, the edge of the paper would start meshing with the gears, which would firstly stuff the print up, and secondly, possibly jam the processor; real problems and time waster when that happened.

    If you do a search, you should find some threads regarding large prints.

    For wall projection with these sizes a metal wall is best, using magnets to hold the paper up. You must remember that all of this is done in total darkness and for a print of this size two people work in complete darkness to unload a specific length of paper, cut it with a Stanley knife, then affix it to the wall in the correct position. Exposure is often up to 10 or 15 minutes with very big enlargements. Familiarity with your co-worker, was an important pre-requisite to working in the darkroom with this kind of enlarging!

    The minimum negative size is 4x5" with 8x10" being preferable. By using copy internegative materials (no longer available) one could take a 35mm transparency and dupe it up to an 8x10" negative for enlargement.

    From start to finish often took a minimum of three days as checks and client approval was needed at every step of the way. The process is/was so expensive, mistakes had to be kept to a minimum.

    Mick.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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