Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,956   Posts: 1,522,880   Online: 1162
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Newton's Rings

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    450
    Old Leitz trick--runa hairdryer over the neg a little-1 ft away- to get the moisture out.
    Last edited by chip j; 07-12-2013 at 11:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD/Belchertown, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    26
    You probably not only had Newton's rings in the old setup as well but, since you say the light had a large diffuse component coming from other angles around the room, you probably had multiple instances of them with different radii. This might have smeared them out so they were less visible than they are now.
    "A friend will bail you out of jail.
    A TRUE friend will be beside you saying 'Damn! That was fun!'"


    "There's more than one way to skin a cat.
    With the new Pocket Peeler(TM) from ButchCo Industries, there's 75!"

  3. #13
    kintatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    349
    Images
    2
    Well, I've tried several things.

    I couldn't find any milk glass or thin diffusing "filter", so I used tissue, which works great, although if you're not careful, you get texture. It also helped with highlights when enlarging. I'll look for a plain white filter similar to Ilford's MG filters.

    I contact printed without the frame. Just negative on paper, with glass on top. This helped a large amount. Apparently, the backing of the frame has more give than I thought. It wasn't noticeable before, which brings back the condensing light.

    I also washed the glass with alcohol and a lens cloth, letting it air dry. This also improved things.

    Doing each individually was an improvement, but putting the 3 together seems to be the ticket. On only 1 print did I get what may be something bad, but it's hard to tell if it's a fingerprint, or something else.

    I also considered sbuczkowski's comment about previous contacts. I reviewed several at random, including earlier attempts with the same negatives that showed rings. Using a 10 loupe, not a single one was visible. Perhaps it was luck, grace, or something else that prevented them appearing.

    When I get more paper and time, I'll add drying the negatives with a hair dryer, and possibly washing them with alcohol, and see what that gives me. The only paper I have left is an unopened pack of 25 sheets, 20ish year old Kodak Polycontrast 5x7. Even being unopened and stored in a cool, dry, and dark place, I think it will be unusable.

    Thank you all for taking the time to reply, and for sharing your hard earned tips and tricks! I really appreciate it.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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