Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,592   Posts: 1,546,062   Online: 945
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,954
    Images
    71
    When I saw this thread I went to the darkroom and started playing with this kallitype thing again. Here's my problem, when I take the print out of the plate burner, it's just brautiful, develop it a little worse, rinse, a little bit more worse, clear it even more worse and on and on until it's a muddy mess. This happens with all kinds of exposures. The details, Stonehenge paper, 10% Ferric oxalate and 20% silver nitrate mixed 1+1. Develop in 20% sodium citrate and have tried various additions of dichromate, fix in TF-4 1+9. Is this just bad paper for this process?..Evan Clarke

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    167
    Images
    17
    Are you sure your FO is 10% and your silver is 20%? That's just the opposite of what I use, 20% FO & 10% silver. I have never tried Stonehenge. I recall reading when I first started that the old Stonehenge Rising was great, but they changed it and it was no longer that good. I was getting good results with Arches Plantine initially, but then when I bought new paper, a year or so ago, it was coming out kinda splotchy. Switched to COT 320, which is great but expensive. Now I'm using Rives BFK.

    Can you post a picture of the print?

  3. #23
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,954
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by R Shaffer View Post
    Are you sure your FO is 10% and your silver is 20%? That's just the opposite of what I use, 20% FO & 10% silver. I have never tried Stonehenge. I recall reading when I first started that the old Stonehenge Rising was great, but they changed it and it was no longer that good. I was getting good results with Arches Plantine initially, but then when I bought new paper, a year or so ago, it was coming out kinda splotchy. Switched to COT 320, which is great but expensive. Now I'm using Rives BFK.

    Can you post a picture of the print?
    Hi,
    No, it was an old guy brain stumble..20% FO and 10% SN I have ordered some other papers which should arrive tomorrow. I bought the Stonehenge for some polymer plate prints so it tried it but have not gotten a good result with the kallitype. Crazy thing is that the prints are beautiful when I take them from the plate burner!...EC

  4. #24
    rst
    rst is offline
    rst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,103
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by eclarke View Post
    ... Crazy thing is that the prints are beautiful when I take them from the plate burner!...EC
    That kind of surprises me. When I take the print out of the plate burner I can just see the deepest shadows and mid tones as well as highlights do not show up at all. I would never call them beautiful at this point of the process. I think, if an undeveloped kallitype looks beautiful, that is a hint that your negative carries not enough contrast for the process. I may have the time to do some kallitypes over the weekend. I will take some pictures with my digital snap of the print on its way through the process.

    Cheers
    Ruediger

  5. #25
    MVNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Florida
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    5,193
    Images
    247
    eclark your prints should look like RST described. It sounds like you are way over exposing and/or the negative contrast is too low. Like other alt. processes, kallitype needs a pretty contrasty negative. I try to make negatives that work for both Pt/Pd and Kallitype (DR approx. 1.85 ) You can check this by placing a step tablet next to your negative and watching what happens both with range and contrast. Kallitype is probably more paper sensitive than other alt. processes. Try papers that don't need "acidification" , tween , and super pre-humidification. Lastly, the coating doesn't have to be too heavy and soaking. Keep trying! Kallitype prints can rival the best "types" out there.

    Miles
    Miles :
    cherish light

  6. #26
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,954
    Images
    71
    Thanks Guys, I have been using one 8x10 negative which prints just fine with pt/pd so it seems that the Kallitype is a little trickier! I have been all over the map with the exposure from about 150 units to 400 units in my Amergraph. What exposure units are you guys using and what kind of units??...Evan Clarke

  7. #27
    rst
    rst is offline
    rst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,103
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by eclarke View Post
    Thanks Guys, I have been using one 8x10 negative which prints just fine with pt/pd so it seems that the Kallitype is a little trickier! I have been all over the map with the exposure from about 150 units to 400 units in my Amergraph. What exposure units are you guys using and what kind of units??...Evan Clarke
    If it prints with pt/pd then it can not be totally wrong for kallitype.

    To expose my kallitypes I use something a bit bigger than a facial tanner. Not very professional, but it works very well for me and it is sufficient to do up to 8x10 negatives. Exposure usually lies in the range of 2-3 minutes. But as I said, the exposed but undeveloped kallitype should look yellow except the shadow areas which show up slightly orange.

    Cheers
    Ruediger

  8. #28
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,954
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by rst View Post
    If it prints with pt/pd then it can not be totally wrong for kallitype.

    To expose my kallitypes I use something a bit bigger than a facial tanner. Not very professional, but it works very well for me and it is sufficient to do up to 8x10 negatives. Exposure usually lies in the range of 2-3 minutes. But as I said, the exposed but undeveloped kallitype should look yellow except the shadow areas which show up slightly orange.

    Cheers
    Ruediger
    Thanks Ruediger, I am WAY overexposing them then which is too bad because what I see on the paper is really pretty. I will have some other papers tonight and will back the exposure down. The surface of the Stonehenge seems to get a little ratty after a fair amount of wet time...Evan Clarke

  9. #29
    rst
    rst is offline
    rst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,103
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by eclarke View Post
    Thanks Ruediger, I am WAY overexposing them then which is too bad because what I see on the paper is really pretty. I will have some other papers tonight and will back the exposure down. The surface of the Stonehenge seems to get a little ratty after a fair amount of wet time...Evan Clarke
    I have just coated some paper and I am going to take some images of the exposed but undeveloped image which I may show here. give me some time.

    Cheers
    Ruediger

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    167
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by eclarke View Post
    Thanks Guys, I have been using one 8x10 negative which prints just fine with pt/pd so it seems that the Kallitype is a little trickier! I have been all over the map with the exposure from about 150 units to 400 units in my Amergraph. What exposure units are you guys using and what kind of units??...Evan Clarke
    This may be way off base, but are you using your pt/pd 27% FO for kallitype?

    I ran out of my kallitype FO a while back ago and tried diluting my pt/pd FO for the emulsion. It did not work and I got a print with very very weak d-max and it looked just awful. I think the only difference between the two is a bit of oxalic acid in the pt/pd FO, other than dilution, and I may have screwed that up too.

Page 3 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