Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,940   Posts: 1,585,651   Online: 855
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    324
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    I was contact printing them, 5 seconds at F11 under the enlarger, then developing 5 min at 20C in Xtol

    For the 4x5 chromes, I was using J&C 100 in 8x10 and exposing 4 sec, same development.
    unfortunately, I've never used xtol so I don't know how to compare your development... but generally you want a significantly diluted developer so that you don't build too much contrast in your mask. If you have a densitometer I would recommend that you might want to build a density of .45 for CPM.1M emulsion, probably less. .45 density would be holding back 1.5 stops of light at the densest places on your masking film... It is not my intent to get technical, sorry.

    Your expsure sounds like a lot to me, but again I don't know your set up... I expose my masks like this.

    I use a 150mm lens probably about 30 inches above my film. I focus light on the easel by moving the head until the edges of light are sharp. I stop the lens down to F8 and have it set to white light. My exposures are about 5-8 seconds, but I am exposing through colored filters that reduce the amount of light by at least 3 stops... I also have a diffusion layer on the top of the sandwhich which further reduces exosure.

    I think Dave is correct, it sounds like have a mask which is too dense....

    Good Luck,

    Corey

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    343
    Hi,
    Two items in addition to reducing the mask density: 1) it is not uncommon to first make a lith mask which, when sandwiched w/ the transparency, protects the specular highlights from gaining density in the contrast mask and 2) PE's suggestion might warrant some further investigation if you are indeed using a P30 2l kit. It has been quite some time since P30 was replaced by the P3.5 kit and any P30 would have quite a bit of age on it. This, combined with the relative ease of cross contamination in a CAP 40, and the fact that your initial prints were fine, (and the cost of wasting sheets of Ilfochrome - ouch) might make it worth at least checking the chemistry.
    Celac

  3. #13
    Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    779
    Images
    39
    My masks were probably too dense, as the sheets that I printed unmasked with clean whites were the last prints I made, and that was after running 13 16x20 sheets through the machine.

    In hindsight, I probably could have printed the chromes without masks, instead some careful dodging and burning. I'll see if I can post a scan of one of the prints, or a portion of one, since I can't scan 16x20.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    P30 2 litre kit in a Cap 40 processor at 30C
    Aren't you supposed to use the DEZ additive in the developer when using P30 in CAP40 processor?

  5. #15
    Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    779
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by max_ebb View Post
    Aren't you supposed to use the DEZ additive in the developer when using P30 in CAP40 processor?
    According to the Cibachrome printing manual I have, it needs to be added to kits that are all powder, but it is present in the kits that have liquid concentrates.

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