Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,219   Posts: 1,532,221   Online: 845
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    Partial results are in....

    I became impatient and decided to try to address the contrast issue and the development time issue. Using #1 and #1.5 VC filter, I was able to produce some pleasing prints. Using anywhere from 45 to 55 seconds exposure at f/8, I was able to deliver shadow detail and high-light to my satisfaction.

    Extending the development time to 90 seconds from 60 seconds did not make appreciable difference. In fact, I could not tell any difference. While the documentation says I need 90 seconds, apparently, it is fully developed at around 60 seconds mark under my condition.

    I still think, since my negatives were over-developed, these results are skewed.... and since the output of lamp is in question, exposure time issue still remains. I don't even know if I actually have a problem. The rest will have to wait until the new bulb arrives.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97
    Your post got me curious as I have been using an Omega D2V for 25+ years and in all that time have never printed a 35mm negative. I have always used a separate dedicated 35mm enlarger when printing that format. So this morning I selected a negative that I knew to have normal density and contrast trying to duplicate your setup with and 80mm lens set to f8. My variable condenser was set in the lower position. My fixed condensers are 6 1/2" separated by a corrugated spacer as I assume yours are as well. A straight print without filtration ran 17 seconds and showed normal contrast and density as expected. When I held an Ilford #2 VC filter under the lens time jumped to 32 seconds. Print image sizes on Ilford MG IV RC were 6 5/8 X 9 5/8 (projected image size just slightly larger). So your 45 to 60 second exposure times would not be typical for my setup. I would be curious if your times change substantially after a new PH211 is installed. If your negatives are substantially denser than mine (over exposed?) that certainly could account for the difference in printing time. When switching to a 50mm lens times remained the same but I had to install a recessed lens disc as my bellows would not compress enough to allow proper focus. Bottom line: regardless of your printing times if your results are good that is all that matters. Thanks for inspiring me to finally print 35mm with the Omega!

  3. #23
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,855
    Images
    32
    You definitly should switch to a 50mm lens. The 75mm acts as a telephoto narrowing the projection area. With a 50, your head elevation will be quite a bit lower, shortening the exposure time. Also you can open up one stop, which will shorten exposure time as well.
    Rick

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    Rick,

    I don't know how to thank you for trying this out on your setup. Since I posted THIS question, I found few things wrong with my process leading up to the printing stage.

    I cannot comment on over-exposure because of all the errors I've made in processing the film. I over-agitated my tank when developing my film with XTOL and the temperature of the fixer was too high. Looking at few frames under microscope, I can see my negatives lack smooth and wide mid tones. Sky with some cloud look awfully light and trees become very dark gray to totally black. (backwards in negative term, of course) The tonality jumps from white to black too quickly. Overall, details that I want aren't there.

    I've already experimented and corrected the improper paper development time but that did not make any difference. Using #1 and #1.5 filter, I was able to make some OK prints but still - what's lost is already lost. My prints look ok to some people that I've shown them, but I'm not quite satisfied with them, yet.

    With all this happening right now, I think, trying to judge exposure time based on what I have is perhaps meaningless. My current plan is to get a new bulb (on order), shoot a roll and process it very carefully, and try this again. Hopefully, with right negatives and fresh bulb, I can get close to the known-right exposure time (which is your data).

    Thanks again. I will report back in a week or two with fresh results.

  5. #25
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,855
    Images
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    Rick,

    I don't know how to thank you for trying this out on your setup. Since I posted THIS question, I found few things wrong with my process leading up to the printing stage.

    I cannot comment on over-exposure because of all the errors I've made in processing the film. I over-agitated my tank when developing my film with XTOL and the temperature of the fixer was too high. Looking at few frames under microscope, I can see my negatives lack smooth and wide mid tones. Sky with some cloud look awfully light and trees become very dark gray to totally black. (backwards in negative term, of course) The tonality jumps from white to black too quickly. Overall, details that I want aren't there.

    I've already experimented and corrected the improper paper development time but that did not make any difference. Using #1 and #1.5 filter, I was able to make some OK prints but still - what's lost is already lost. My prints look ok to some people that I've shown them, but I'm not quite satisfied with them, yet.

    With all this happening right now, I think, trying to judge exposure time based on what I have is perhaps meaningless. My current plan is to get a new bulb (on order), shoot a roll and process it very carefully, and try this again. Hopefully, with right negatives and fresh bulb, I can get close to the known-right exposure time (which is your data).

    Thanks again. I will report back in a week or two with fresh results.
    I just picked up my D-5 last friday, and have only had a couple of sessions experimenting with it. However I've been working in darkrooms(my own and others)for over 40 years. Keep a journal of everything you are doing. Keep a separate set of notes when shooting, another for film developing, and a third for enlarging. This way you can cross reference what you are working on, and any mistakes or procedures that dont work together can be eliminated. I use a dry erase board to keep notes while I'm printing one negative until I finish it, then log the final procedure notes in a journal in case I want to reprint that neg. Everything you are doing is right-you are persevering, and that is exactly what you need to do. Keep asking questions here, this is the best place to be. Also I'm available through PM's and phone calls(if you are in the states)to help if you need it.
    God Bless and keep on working at this--its right for your soul.
    Rick

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97
    If you think it would be useful I would be happy to send you one of my "normal" 35mm negatives along with the resulting print using my D2V and 80mm lens. That way you could compare your output with mine. Just contact me off post.

  7. #27
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Dont get too hung up on recommended print developing times.
    I use Dektol mostly with FB paper and depending on what tones I want I have gone to 4 minutes (the developer can become somewhat exhausted/slower).

    Bottom line is you print, evaluate, and reprint.
    One negative can give quite different results based on all your choices like dodging, burning etc and then when the print is in the developer I even will use my fingers sometimes to work the developer into highlight areas to "heat" the developer a bit from body temp/friction and work the developer into those tones a bit more if they are lacking.

    Bottom line is don't get too wrapped up in published times, techniques... experiment. The accomplishments are well worth any effort and it's much more rewarding to me than digi.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    Update 1

    I went shooting today and got two rolls of film exposed. Since my last post, I have been reading up on Kodak's instruction notes and I found in ONE of them, F-4043 for Tmax400, says that the posted development time for film are for creating good negative to be used for diffusion type enlargers. The document I was using, J-109 for XTOL, didn't mention anything about this. It goes on to say that for condenser type enlargers, contrast needs to be reduced by reducing the development time. I have an condenser type enlarger. It then points to a different page. On this page, it lists how much time to reduce for given developers but XTOL wasn't listed, so I guessed and reduced 20%. I also started using 1:1 dilution rather than full strength. Timing for this trial was 5:36 at 25C. The result is much nicer looking negatives but it was little on the light side. For the second roll, I increased the development time to 6:00. Got little darker but far lighter than my first negative that was developed.

    Hopefully, I can try producing prints using these negatives tomorrow.

    Right now, my goal is to produce a negative that prints well with #2 filter in somewhat more normal exposure time.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Hello tkamiya...

    F4043 hints that those who have condenser enlargers should also increase exposure when reducing development time. It's not something strange, it's what we call pull processing; they just don't state it explicitly. On page 8 there's a note with an asterisk and it says "If you select one of these factors, add one stop to your camera exposure", it's under the table. The reason behind this is that shadow detail will be too thin and it will be at the lower left part of the characteristic curve. At that part, (and given the reduced development) the tonal separation will not be sufficient, so detail at that part won't show up nicely at the prints. You can also have a look at page 10, where you'll find contrast index curves. If you want a CI of 0,45, then 7:20 at 20 degrees C with Xtol 1+1 will probably do it, but then you'll probably need to shoot at 200ISO. In any case, only you can say what's good for you and you need to experiment.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    Anon,

    Thank you very much for pointing this out.

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