Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,907   Posts: 1,584,610   Online: 959
      
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,726
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18

    My Ilfochrome Trials

    Let me start out saying that I am new to printing Ilfochrome and this is the only color process I have used. Last night I printed a few nice 8x10s of this one scene. I got the colors just where I wanted them and the exposure just right. I decided that this image would look beter as a panorama so i decided to open a new box of 16x20 and cut it down to 8x20. Since this was a new box of paper I cut one sheet into 4 8x10s and one of those into 4 4x5s. I calculated the diferences in filtration and setup the enlarger. I made a few 4x5s and determined the new filtration was just right (I was amazed as this was the first time I had done this). I then made two new 8x10s on this same paper and found that they closely matched the old paper. By then I had run out of chemicals and it was late. So this morning I mixed up a new batch of chemicals and reframed the image to the 8x20 size. I made a 4x5 and 8x10 test image and found that everything was still working, so I cut a 16x20 sheet in half and exposed both halves. I ran these through the processor (Jobo) and when I pulled them out they were horrible. The whole image had gone magenta. I made another 4x5 test image and it again turned out fine, so I figured I had contaminated the drum. After washing everything out I tried again. Same result - mageneta. I then figured I had somehow ruined the batch of chemicals so I put them aside and mixed up another batch. And tried again with the same mageneta results. Finally my wife suggested that I try an old sheet of paper with the old filtration and a new sheet at the new filtration. I did this with an freshly cut down sheet of 16x20 and an older 8x10. The old sheet came out fine, but the new sheet was still magenta.

    If you are still reading this, thank you. The only thing I can come up with is that the first sheet in the 16x20 pack, which I cut up for test strips, was different from the subsequent sheets. Has anyone else had this problem? Do you have any ideas of what else could have caused this? I figure I have wasted about $40 worth of paper and chmeicals today, along with a bunch of time - what a true waste of a day.

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,486
    Images
    20
    That kind of thing is really frustrating. My guess is that you may not be using enough solution for the larger print, and the chemicals are becoming exhausted before development is completed. I haven't done cibas in a while, but if I remember correctly, you'll need something like 12-16 oz per 16x20" print.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,726
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    That kind of thing is really frustrating. My guess is that you may not be using enough solution for the larger print, and the chemicals are becoming exhausted before development is completed. I haven't done cibas in a while, but if I remember correctly, you'll need something like 12-16 oz per 16x20" print.
    Thanks for the suggestion. I thought of that this morning, but I am using the same amount per square inch as when I do the 8x10s. For 2 8x10 I have been using 100ml. When I do 4 8x10 or 2 8x20 or 1 16x20 I was using 200ml. When I do 2 4x5 in the test drum I use 40ml, and the results all come out the same - except today. In my tests today I did try using 200ml for one 8x20 and the result was about the same. I say about because it did look slightly different, but still had too much magenta. I think after this I will do some more tests to see if there is a difference with a few other prints.

  4. #4
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,486
    Images
    20
    I checked, and I used to use 75 ml/8x10". I'd think 200ml/8x20 should be enough, or 300-400ml/16x20, but maybe there's some issue with the way an 8x20 is oriented in the drum (i.e. if half the drum is empty). Maybe try 300ml with an 8x20.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #5
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,726
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    David,

    I will look into trying the larger volumes, but given the cost of the soup I prefer to use as little as possible.

    One reason I do not think it is related to the amount of solution used is that when I made an 8x10 cut from the 16x20 paper and an 8x10 from a different pack (using the correct filtration for each) the new paper still exhibited the magenta cast. The first sheet i cut up did not have this cast in any test i used it. I wish I still had a piece of the first sheet I cut up so I could do a more dirrect comparison. So it looks to me like not all the paper in the pack is the same emulsion. I will pull a sheet from the bottom and test it as well.

  6. #6
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,706
    Images
    14
    Hi there

    I have never seen different emulsions in the same box of paper, are you saying that you have balanced two different papers via the filters so that the two different papers match visually but with different enlarger settings, you then enlarge the image and make a test strip that matches , you then expose a larger sheet of the same paper and it comes out magenta.
    If so , I agree with david and would first off start with more chemistry to attack the larger surface.
    If you have tested the image at the larger magnification and used a smaller sheet and seen good results, then it is not the paper.
    Please list the papers you are using and the enlarger settings with apeture and time and it may seem clearer
    thanks

  7. #7
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,726
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Bob, I am sorry I was not clear. What I am saying is that I had a slide balanced and in the enlarger. I switched to a different paper, which happened to be cut from a larger sheet and I used the new filter settings specified on the box.

    For the initial paper, in 8x10, which specified that I use C10 M0 Y10 I found that I needed C15 M0 Y15 to match the slide.

    I switched to the same Glossy RC paper but in 16x20. To balance this I cut one sheet up as I described above. The filtration on this paper was specified to be C0 M15 Y30. I then calculated that I needed C0 M10 Y30 for this new paper. I tried one of my freshly cut papers at this new filteration, having adjusted the aperture with a light meter. This print was almost exact match. What I was trying to say above is that the only prints that match were the ones cut from this original sheet. The subsequent sheets all had a magenta cast, which I attributed to various other problems, and always tested back with this initial cut sheet in 4x5 and 8x10 size.

    So, what it looks like to me is that only the first sheet matched the filtration settings on the box. So far the rest of the pack needs about -10M from the looks of it.

    Larry



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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