Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,695   Posts: 1,549,066   Online: 1033
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Harrigan View Post
    Thanks for the responses. I will try reducing my exposure next time but I didn't really over expose the neg on purpose, I simply gave it more processing time than I would have for a regular silver print. I exposed as I normally would for bw and increased my processing in an attempt to get the right highlight density for pop.

    Well obviously you guys think the neg is way too dense so it must be the problem. As long as you're telling me I should be printing centennial pop in the 10 minute range with the BLB's I certainly need to adjust my exposure technique for this process.
    Is your film fresh? If not, it will have more B+F stain than fresh fine, and this can significantly increase exposure times with alternative processes. It will also increase exposure time with regular silver printing, but whereas with silver printing where exposures are usually in seconds, doubling or tripling the exposure is not a major problem. In alternative printing, where exposures are in minutes, doubling or tripling the exposure can quickly lead to really long times.

    But don't worry. Every alternative printer has a few negatives that take on the order of hours to expose. Well, at least I have a few of those.

    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 08-31-2007 at 08:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,321
    Images
    20
    Have you tried sunlight?

    I find that my best negs for albumen require an exposure on the order of 45-60 minutes in indirect sunlight, but that becomes 15-20 minutes in direct midday sun. On an albumen printing day, I'll usually start around 10 a.m. and print until 3 or 4 p.m.

    I've read that direct sun produces less contrasty results than indirect sun with albumen (contrary to expectations), but I haven't noticed such a great difference. One of these days I need to set up a good test for this.
    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. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Have you tried sunlight?

    I find that my best negs for albumen require an exposure on the order of 45-60 minutes in indirect sunlight, but that becomes 15-20 minutes in direct midday sun. On an albumen printing day, I'll usually start around 10 a.m. and print until 3 or 4 p.m.

    I've read that direct sun produces less contrasty results than indirect sun with albumen (contrary to expectations), but I haven't noticed such a great difference. One of these days I need to set up a good test for this.

    Very good suggestion. I think printing with the sun is definitely the way to go with processes like albumen, salted paper and VDB. But you need a contact printing frame with a split back so that you can judge exposure.

    Several years ago I spent a summer making salted paper prints printing with the sun, and it was very a very pleasant experience. Printing old processes with the sun really puts you in contact with the roots of photography. Plus, I found that the sun prints salted paper, and I bet albumen also, much faster than BL tubes.

    I always printed with the frame facing the sun at right angle in order to maximize the point source nature of the sun. I found that I got better sharpness this way than printing in the shade.

    Sandy King

  4. #14
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,864
    Images
    97
    For POP I'd also suggest the sun. It is fairly easy to gauge proper exposure as the prints begin to bronze when the proper exposure is reached (assuming the negative density range is OK).

    Joe

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shenadoah Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    342
    Images
    4
    Thanks again I will try the sun. I like the idea of getting into the roots of photography. The reason I used artificial was to maintain a more consistent light source. Do you suggest full sun or open shade?

    I know my neg is dense but no way it's like 3 stops off or anything. I don't even know how that would be possible.

    I have to admit I have used a new film here, Foma 200 and tray processed in in ABC pyro. This may be a bad combo but its what i have to work with right now. I have never used either of these before so I guess it's a little optimistic to use all these new materials and get the perfect neg the first time printing to centennial pop. Anyway the neg was printable at least albeit a days work to complete an edition of 5.

    Thanks for helping.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Harrigan View Post
    Thanks again I will try the sun. I like the idea of getting into the roots of photography. The reason I used artificial was to maintain a more consistent light source. Do you suggest full sun or open shade?

    I know my neg is dense but no way it's like 3 stops off or anything. I don't even know how that would be possible.

    I have to admit I have used a new film here, Foma 200 and tray processed in in ABC pyro. This may be a bad combo but its what i have to work with right now. I have never used either of these before so I guess it's a little optimistic to use all these new materials and get the perfect neg the first time printing to centennial pop. Anyway the neg was printable at least albeit a days work to complete an edition of 5.

    Thanks for helping.
    I would suggest direct sun, with the glass of the frame aimed straight at the sun to maximize point source.

    Printing in the shade does seem to give more contrast, but is much slower.

    I have never used Foma 200 so can not comment about it. No reason ABC Pyro should not work, though.

    Sandy King

  7. #17
    JLP
    JLP is offline
    JLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,597
    Images
    19
    Hope those of you using the Nuarc 26-1KS are not leading me down the wrong path? I'm going to pick one up in a few hours.
    BL tubes works fine but my average exposure time is around 18 minutes for negative developed in Pyrocat MC and about 7-8 developed in Xtol.

    What kind of exposure time are you getting from the 26-1K?
    Thanks.

    jan

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by JLP View Post
    Hope those of you using the Nuarc 26-1KS are not leading me down the wrong path? I'm going to pick one up in a few hours.
    BL tubes works fine but my average exposure time is around 18 minutes for negative developed in Pyrocat MC and about 7-8 developed in Xtol.

    What kind of exposure time are you getting from the 26-1K?
    Thanks.

    jan

    I used a NuARc 26-1k along with a bank of BL tubes for a couple of years. The BL bank actually printed a bit faster than the NuArc, so don't expect to see a dramatic decrease in printing time with the 26-1ks. But it is a very good printer, and together with light integrator and vacuum frame should give great results.

    Sandy

  9. #19
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    It is just not the exposure times that make it nice. For one...it is a point light source with a vacuum frame a foot underneath it that allows you to dodge and burn much easier than a light box. It also has a light integrator and once you get use to using units instead of seconds you can get consistent results much easier. If it is only speed you are looking for you may want to reconsider. As the 1000 watter may not give you any significant increase in speed.

  10. #20
    JLP
    JLP is offline
    JLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,597
    Images
    19
    Thanks Sandy and Robert for the clarification. I got it in my garage now and need to find a place to put it so i can start using it.
    Are there any notable change in sharpness between the tubes and the point light source?

    Thanks again.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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