Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,053   Posts: 1,561,249   Online: 1040
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,958
    a 2cc or 2 points or 0.02 density change is visible. a 1/2pt change is not visible to me. a .02 change in magenta filtration would result in about 0.04 change in the RA-4 paper.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3

    First results

    Hi All,
    Thanks for all the useful information. I was up until 1AM last night printing my first ever RA-4 print. I started at 50M + 50Y + UV, but that was way too much filtration. I finally ended up with 10M + UV for a final print that looks pretty good, although when I put it in a gray card, I can see that it is still too cool. I think I'm going to end up adding a little cyan. BTW, the negative is Kodak Portra 400VC.
    One thing I noticed is that the color paper seems to be MUCH more sensitive to light. I ended up having to turn my rheostat all the way down and set my f/stop to f/22 to get a print time of 15 sec - this is for a 4x5 print from a 35mm neg.

    Thanks,

    Dan

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    DSlater, You should not need to use cyan if all your processes are in control. However you can add cyan with equal amounts of yellow and majenta to act as a neutral density filter. This will enable you to open up your enlarger lens somewhat f22 is not an ideal aperture for best sharpness although it can be useful with a curly negative in a glassless holder.
    Keep on trying it gets easier and easier.
    Richard.

  4. #64
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    Hi All,
    Thanks for all the useful information. I was up until 1AM last night printing my first ever RA-4 print. I started at 50M + 50Y + UV, but that was way too much filtration. I finally ended up with 10M + UV for a final print that looks pretty good...
    What is '+UV'?

    Richard is correct that equal amounts of CYM will produce a ND filter that will allow you to increase the length of the exposure or open the lens up. With a filter pack of 10 0 0 it is not surprising that you have a short exposure. 35mm to 4x5 is also not a big enlargement and wouldn't be a long exposure at a 50 50 0.

    I have an 8x10 infront of me that has the following notes: 10sec @ f/8 30m 42y 0. If my math is correct that same neg would be 2.5 sec for a 4x5, and around a second if I dropped the filter pack to 10m 0y 0c. Generally I don't care what the length of the exposure is unless there is a need for dodging and or burning. It is beneficial to have the lens at an optimal aperture, although at 4x5 there may be less benefit.

    *

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Max_ebb, thanks for your reply. I use pipettes for my C41 chemicals but for RA4 i usually just use a grad. Mixing 2.5ltrs of Fuji CPRA I need 100ml of parts a, b and c. and 66ml of starter. I am pretty sure that I get the Quantities accurate but can't be sure.
    However I find that the same negative in the same session needs the same filtration but the next negative which may have been taken in the same light and same situation may vary quite a bit. And the same negative may vary from session to session. I do use a voltage regulator and a Jobo colorstar analyser. I think I would pull my hair out without it. I still need to run a test strip to make final adjustments though. I think control strips are what I should invest in. They would at least tell me if I have a chemical problem.
    PE I have read this before from you and please don't think that I doubt your verity. I just can't repeat your experience. I wish I could come to Rochester and see your technique. It would be an honour to have a lesson from and ex EK guy. However my wife would have Kittens (and my head) if I told her I was off to the States to spend time in a darkroom.

  6. #66
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,265
    Images
    65
    If this is CA paper, the filter pack is what I have seen sometimes reported recently for the new CAII paper.

    From the exposure though it sounds as if his enlarger lamp is too 'hot' which means that it will be needing more cyan filtration. Could it be that there is no heat absorber glass in the enlarger?

    A HA glass is required to filter out excess IR and red light.

    PE

  7. #67
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,265
    Images
    65
    Both Kodak and Fuji recommend a HA (2043 or equivalent IIRC) and a WR 2B UV absorber in the beam of all color enlargers.

    All color enlargers will have this built in, but most B&W enlargers will not.

    PE

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Harris View Post
    DSlater, You should not need to use cyan if all your processes are in control. However you can add cyan with equal amounts of yellow and majenta to act as a neutral density filter. This will enable you to open up your enlarger lens somewhat f22 is not an ideal aperture for best sharpness although it can be useful with a curly negative in a glassless holder.
    Keep on trying it gets easier and easier.
    Richard.
    Hi Richard,
    I'm pretty sure my processes are in control. While this is my first attempt at RA-4 processing, I have been doing E-6 and C-41 for a while now. I have a Jobo CPE-2 which seems to keep my temps consistent, and I try to be very consistent with my processing times. I also mix all my chemistry with distilled water. When I mixed the RA-4 developer, I mixed up the whole gallon at once.
    I do think the negative I'm using has a bit of cyan cast to it. The final print I got didn't look that bad, but when I put it on top of a neutral B&W print, the cyan color was obvious.
    Have you printed on this paper yourself? I don't remember if you said before. If so I'd be very interested if you tried Portra 400VC on this paper and what results you got.

    Edit: See my reply to PE below - looks like I need to find an HA

    Thanks for all the advice,

    Dan

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    If this is CA paper, the filter pack is what I have seen sometimes reported recently for the new CAII paper.

    From the exposure though it sounds as if his enlarger lamp is too 'hot' which means that it will be needing more cyan filtration. Could it be that there is no heat absorber glass in the enlarger?

    A HA glass is required to filter out excess IR and red light.

    PE
    Hmmm - you know, I have a piece of glass in there I use for 6x6 VC printing filters. I have no ides if it is heat absorbing. Probably not as that would explain my filter pack and exposure times.

    Thanks,

    Dan

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3

    Success !!

    Hi all,
    I've finally have a good print with a reasonable color pack - 30Y + 40M. I got a Beseler Dichro DG color head and just finished an evening of printing with it.

    Thanks for all your help,

    Dan

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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