Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,962   Posts: 1,523,143   Online: 948
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46
  1. #11
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    As others have said, I think it is a bad idea to try and test print on RC and then do final prints on fiber. When I've tried to do this I usually discover enough differences that I have to start all over on fiber so now I start with the material I'm going to finish with, every time. While it might give you a starting point from RC I find the difference to be enough that there is no point in trying to start with RC unless I plan on doing the final product on RC.

    Your fix time seems very long. Rapid fixer will fix in 1:00 so you could do two fixer baths of 0:30, not 3:00.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  2. #12
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    689
    Images
    5
    How would you folks say that Ilford Multigrade Glossy Fiber compares to ADOX MCC 110 Glossy? I bought and tried a few sheets of the MCC using Ilford Multigrade developer and I felt the dried print look "grey" compared to the same negative printed on MGIV RC or Adorama RC Glossy. Kind of low in contrast and an overall "grey" appearance. I have not used an FB paper before and bought a very small quantity of the MCC based on all its reviews to try an FB paper. I would be willing to believe the MG developer with the MCC 110 is not a great combination and am wondering if another paper or developer might suit me better. Not saying the ADOX is a bad paper, just maybe not to my taste. Also, I have some Dektol coming in to try the ADOX with that as that seems to be a more popular combination.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,913
    I can give you just one hint as I am new to printing with FB also.

    I used blotter book when I began and what a disaster! Without weight, the print came out curled all over the place. When I placed weight, fiber from blotter book stuck to the print surface and never came out even after re-washing. I now squeegee water off the print and lay them flat on towels face up to dry.

    Based on my limited experience, FB print looks nothing like RC. My print timing is very similar but FB has much brighter white and much darker black. I find each has very unique look of their own. I tried first to make FB print look like RC but that was a useless effort. I achieved my "happy place" by starting with my RC timing and fine tuning to get the best look on FB, rather than trying to make it look like RC.

    Here's my process:

    DEKTOL 2 1/2min
    STOP 30sec
    FIX1 5min (Kodak's regular fixer, not rapid)
    FIX2 5min
    Wash 2min
    HCA 3min
    Wash 30min
    Dry
    Last edited by tkamiya; 03-20-2011 at 09:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  4. #14
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    I've noticed this, myself. I have started changing my development times because of it.

    I have been waiting until the image starts to pop then developing 2 minutes past that. From experience, that usually comes out to about 2:30... so that's where I set my timer.
    Not a bad start. Better yet: Time the appearance of the midtones and multiply that time by 6. The result is your total development time. This is called 'factorial development' and compensates for temperature fluctuations and developer exhaustion. Works a treat!
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  5. #15
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    ...

    Here's my process:

    DEKTOL 2 1/2min
    STOP 30sec
    FIX1 5min (Kodak's regular fixer, not rapid)
    FIX2 5min
    Wash 2min
    HCA 3min
    Wash 30min
    Dry
    Not bad, but try a few minor modifications:

    DEKTOL 3 1/2min (better Dmax)
    STOP 30sec
    FIX1 1min (film-strength rapid fix)
    FIX2 1min (the idea is to fix strong and fast not weak and slow)
    Wash 2min
    HCA 3min (should be enough, but 10min does not hurt)
    Wash 30min
    Dry

    Don't forget toning for archival stability.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #16
    yeknom02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    State College, PA, United States
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    308
    Images
    5
    Thanks for the advice, everyone - especially Ralph for correcting my memory of that section of his book. I am changing my timer presets for my next printing session! At least the prints I did make are very satisfactory, so it's not a complete waste. And at least I did remember a few points in the book - that using rapid fixer is preferable, and that you should tone your prints for archival stability. (I will have to reread the toning information thoroughly before I start that process though.

    As for wash times, I simply stuck with the times listed on the archival rinse's chemical bottle (which says it contains ammonium bisulfite and sodium hydroxide, for those who are interested). If I have to wash longer, I'm worried that I may have to make a print washer (I currently use an overflowing tray) so that I can wash all my prints together. I imagine simply stacking the prints on top of each other would be a bad idea and inhibit the diffusion process.
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST
    My Flickr Gallery

  7. #17
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by yeknom02 View Post
    ... I simply stuck with the times listed on the archival rinse's chemical bottle (which says it contains ammonium bisulfite and sodium hydroxide, for those who are interested). ...
    You've got me worried now. This sounds like the typical ingredients of hypo eliminators, which would explain the short washing time recommendations. Washing aids, which are a good thing, are not to be confused with hypo eliminators, which are no longer recommended, because ironically, small residual amounts of thiosulfate actually provide some level of image protection. In addition, hypo eliminators contain oxidizing agents that may attack the image! A good washing aid contains sodium sulfite and little else. Please check what you bought.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  8. #18
    yeknom02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    State College, PA, United States
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    308
    Images
    5
    I've stated everything I know about the chemistry.

    This is the exact product:
    http://www.freestylephoto.biz/622734...2-oz.?sc=24100
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...shing_Aid.html
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST
    My Flickr Gallery

  9. #19
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Sorry, I'm not familiar with the product.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington area
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    This sounds like the typical ingredients of hypo eliminators, which would explain the short washing time recommendations. Washing aids, which are a good thing, are not to be confused with hypo eliminators, which are no longer recommended, because ironically, small residual amounts of thiosulfate actually provide some level of image protection. In addition, hypo eliminators contain oxidizing agents that may attack the image! A good washing aid contains sodium sulfite and little else.
    Ralph,
    Now I'm confused! I'm considering switching from Kodak HCA to Ilford WashAid. They call it a wash aid and describe it as a hypo-eliminator. Can you enlighten me?

    According to Ilford's website:
    ILFORD WASHAID is a hypo-eliminator formulated to aid the efficient removal of the thiosulphate by-products of fixation by ion exchange. It is particularly useful in speeding up the washing of fibre based papers and is designed to be used with the ILFORD optimum permanence sequences. It can be used to aid the rapid washing of all ILFORD films and fibre papers saving both time and water. It is particularly useful if a hardening fixer has been used.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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