I use one of two developers - normal paper developer (Kodak Dektol 1:2) or a formula called Soemarko LC-1. ( http://members.aol.com/fotodave/Articles/LC-1.html ) The latter is a home made formula mixed from scratch for really low contrast negatives. Dektol will give a normal looking, yet slightly high contrast negative, whereas LC-1 creates a low contrast negative with a sepia-ish appearance.
Originally Posted by scootermm
I create these negatives for cyanotypes. I'm not certain, but I think the contrast/gamma range for pt/pd is somewhere in the same range as cyanotypes.
If shot in camera, take into account that APHS is painfully thin material, and may sag or fall out of a big film holder when the dark slide is pulled (however, I've had no problems with it in my 4x5). It also isn't sensitive to red, yet that in itself can be a really neat effect for a in-camera negative!
Unless it changed, I thought XP2 had a relatively clear base. Kodak's chromogenic film on the other hand does have the orange mask...
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
You may be right on that- it's been a while since I handled XP2. I think it still has some kind of mask, maybe more purple-ish than orange.
HP5+ for Alt Processes
Sandy and others,
I've seen several posts of this nature claiming that HP5+ couldn't yield a high enough DR for some alt processes. I have worked with 12x20 and 8x10 HP5+ for Pt/Pd and Pd/NA2 printing and have had no problems at all in obtaining a density range of 1.6 to 1.9. In fact, some of my negatives require an excessively long exposure because my highlights are around 2.3 UV density. I'm using a modified Wimberley pyro-metol developer. Even with little stain, the film holds up well and doesn't get into the shoulder portion of the curve in the highlights. Of course I'd prefer to shoot TMY in 12x20, but as we all know, it isn't always available.
Originally Posted by sanking
Originally Posted by bobherbst
The original question asked specifically about alternative processes such as albumen and salted paper. I agree with you that it is possible to get a DR of 1.6 - 1.9 from HP5+, but that is the *maximum* you can get, and processes like albumen and salted paper work best with DRs of 2.3 or more so there is no way HP5+ will give optimum results with these processes. And a DR of 1.9 is just at the borderline for straight palladium (even with scenes of normal SBR conditions), i.e. when no NA2 or dichromate is used to control contrast. If you try to photograph a scene with lower than normal contrast with HP5+ and hope to print with no NA2 or dichromate on straight palladium, LOL.
Some contrst control is possible with all of these processes, but my experince tells me that very long scales processes work best without the use of contrast controls and that the best films for these processes are those that can reach the needed DR, without subsequent need for contrast adjustment in the sensitizer or developer.
I wil allow that part of my thinking about HP5+ is based on the use of this film some 5-10 years ago when the emulsion was not capable of as much CI as is the current version of the film. HP5+ is actually a better film today for alternative printing than TRI-X 320, but neither are as good, at least in terms of potential for a high CI, as TMAX-400, FP4+ and Adox/Efke PL100.
Last edited by sanking; 03-10-2007 at 02:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Pyrocat and Litho
Scootermm - I make enlarged negatives with the APHS film and use pyrocat, 1.5:1:100. I spent a lot of time mixing Dektol-like developers and altering contrast with various proportions of A and B developer. Could not get the consistency I wanted and found the contrast going from not enough to too much with small adjustments in proportions.
Originally Posted by scootermm
I decided to simplify my life with using Sandy's original pyrocat formula and adjusting exposure times and A and B proportions of the pyrocat developer. While my application of this film is different from yours, it is worth keeping your developer shelf from groaning under the weight of dozens of bottles. And I am actually learning about how to make one developer work in ways I can predict.
APHS for Continuous Tone
I've been watching this thread with interest, as last week I just embarked on some experiments with APHS as an in-camera film.
For background, I've lurked here for awhile, posted a few times, but spend a lot of time over on F295 doing the pinhole and alternative lens thing.
Last week I loaded up some 4x5 film holders with APHS and headed to Madrid, NM, a former coal mining town on the 'Turquoise Trail', between Abq and Santa Fe. My cameras were a Speed Graphic with a homemade lens, fashioned from a 7x50mm binocular objective, operating wide open at F3; and a pinhole camera operating at F416.
In order to control contrast in bright sunlight with this film, I did three things:
1) Pre-exposed the film in-camera. I have a piece of 1/8" thick white, frosted plastic, which functions to reduce the light throughput by ~2/3 stop. I placed this over the lens or pinhole and made a pre-exposure equal in time duration to the main scene's exposure.
2) Develop using a mixture of dilute HC110 and Agfa Neutol WA. I only used this mixture because it's what I had on hand; perhaps a 3-part developer, as suggested earlier, would work better.
3) I contact printed the resulting negative on VC paper using a grade 00 filter.
The results can be seen in these two examples, the first from the F3 binocular lens and contact printed using a grade 2 filter, and the second from the F416 pinhole, contact printed using a grade 00 filter.
The pinhole negative is intrinsically higher in contrast due to it being a sharper image than the improvised binocular lens image, thus requiring a lower grade of printing filter.
I'm hoping to refine this technique on APHS negatives exposed in high-contrast light, like the pinhole example, so as to enable them to print on a more 'normal' contrast grade of paper.
Last edited by Joe VanCleave; 03-10-2007 at 04:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I like the image of the cherub with the horn. Regardless of film or equipment matters, the image just works.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time for some great input I really appreciate it
HP5 for Alt Processes
I'm printing Pt/Pd from recently exposed/developed HP5+ and TMY negatives now and both are giving me excellent results with DRs ranging from 1.3-1.9. You work in more processes than I do so I can only speak from a more limited scope, but I believe our differing opinions are rooted in different philosophies of negative DR and how that applies to our own personal workflow and process. For example, I never expose/develop for a maximum DR because it does not leave me with any latitude to reduce contrast in the printing or adapt to other metals mixtures. In Pt/Pd I use mixtures of both 50-50 with chlorate and all Pd with a small amount of NA2. I expose/develop my negatives for using a small to moderate amount of contrast agent. We work with different staining developers. There are many factors. Granted, this approach does not apply to processes like albumen that are relatively unforgiving of the negative DR.
Originally Posted by sanking