Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,899   Posts: 1,584,382   Online: 734
      
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 124
  1. #41
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    Bill;

    You seem to be doing it right if I understand the method correctly.

    PE

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    73
    Yes, I think I am doing it as you said it should be done. And the results are decent. I've not been able to find my notes, its been several months since I did any of it and I probably tossed them accidently. I remember that there were a lot of variables to deal with.

  3. #43
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by bill williams View Post
    Yes, I think I am doing it as you said it should be done. And the results are decent. I've not been able to find my notes, its been several months since I did any of it and I probably tossed them accidently. I remember that there were a lot of variables to deal with.
    You should try designing and coating some actual color negative film with its over 9000 variables.

    PE

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    118
    I'm playing around with this at the moment, but exposing the paper in-camera and then reversal processing to get 8x10 positives.

    I'm using Ilford DD-X as a first developer, not ideal I know having read the rest of the thread, but I'll experiment with that when I get my first couple of batches working.

    My question is this. I shot a couple of sheets of supra endura metered at asa 6 and 3. I developed them in the DD-X for 3 minutes then turned on the lights. The one I shot at 6 has a faint but discernable image. The one I shot at 3 is much stronger, but there are definately no blacks, just mid greys. Out of curiosity I got a sheet of supra endura and stuck it out in daylight for a few hours. Dumping a test strip of this into the DDX gave me a slightly darker grey than the shot.

    I'm used to B&W where overexposure will give you a solid black. On the colour papers I guess there's not so much silver or something ? What are other peoples experiences of what a completely exposed bit of colour paper developed in a B&W developer looks like ?

    Taking the same paper and putting a different test strip into my RA-4 developer gives me the blacks I'm expecting, which comes as no surprise of course given that it's activating all the dye layers.

    This evening hopefully I'll get a chance to throw the two sheets through the full RA-4 process and see what comes out the far end

  5. #45
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    The negative silver image on Endura paper is very low in contrast and has no real blacks. Don't try to evaluate this image at all as it is unreliable and misleading.

    PE

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    118
    Hmmm.

    So got around to putting the B&W developed sheet through the rest of the process. The results are a little ... underwhelming ...



    That's shot at asa3 and developed in DDX 1:10 as above before re-exposure (to sunlight, very much to completion). So either I need more exposure on the shooting side (which doesn't really gel with other peoples experiences) or my DDX isn't sufficiently active a first developer. I figured I'd get colour casts, I didn't think the exposure would appear this far off though.

    As it turns out I even had to snatch this from the RA4 developer after about 30 seconds or so because it was just getting darker and darker, so it didn't even get a proper dev cycle in the RA4 chems.

    I have another sheet shot at asa3 sitting in its dark slide ATM, and some Diafine, Rodinal, and that DDX in the house to try. Anyone got any ideas ? I could mix up a more concentrated DDX solution I guess.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    303
    Images
    1
    You may find this thread helpful (photo.net). I think you should try and get your hands on some Dektol (we know that works) or perhaps use a more concentrated DDX or maybe even Rodinal 1:10.

    Also, if you leave the paper out in the sun it will begin to print out (not good) and a few hours between the BW dev and the colour process is probably not advisable either.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by David Grenet View Post
    You may find this thread helpful (photo.net). I think you should try and get your hands on some Dektol (we know that works) or perhaps use a more concentrated DDX or maybe even Rodinal 1:10.

    Also, if you leave the paper out in the sun it will begin to print out (not good) and a few hours between the BW dev and the colour process is probably not advisable either.
    I've read that thread before, there's some good stuff in there all right. I tried again last night, using another sheet shot at asa3, developed in Ilford Multigrade Paper developer 1+3 for 3 minutes, then washed, exposed to room light for about 5 minutes, and then put through the RA4 process. More or less the same results, heavily underexposed looking print, maybe a little less so than the last time but not significantly so. So obviously I'm doing SOMETHING wrong here Maybe the ilford dev just isn't active enough or something.

    Interestingly enough the B&W negative image looked pretty dense, there were grey tones in the highlights (well, dark areas on the negative, you get the idea ) that matched what I was seeing with test strips that were exposed to sunlight and then put through the same developer so it would appear as though the B&W developer did its job correctly, though bearing in mind what PE says above that might or might not be significant.

    I've had success with the same shooting process and just straight RA4 development to get a paper negative, everything was (more or less) exposed correctly, so I don't -think- that's the problem.

    I guess it's time to run a bunch of test sheets at different ISOs or something and try and find out what the ideal one is. It's looking as though it'll be about 1 or under though which is kinda odd given other peoples experiences with paper...

  9. #49
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    You are underexposing by several stops it looks like to me!

    PE

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    303
    Images
    1
    As PE said earlier, the BW negatives are difficult to use to judge exposure (and impossible to judge colour!). Perhaps you should try printing some transparencies under the enlarger to get a feel for the process first.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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