Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,535,009   Online: 1084
      
Page 52 of 57 FirstFirst ... 242464748495051525354555657 LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 563
  1. #511
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,545
    Images
    15
    I have two 300R R40, 300 Watt lights I special ordered, it's what Michael recommended a couple of years ago to me. They were $25.70 each but should last a long time. I have the paper, it arrived just a day before Christmas eve so I will be giving it a go soon. From what others say they are using for light I may have to use my high ceiling.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  2. #512
    Andrew O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada
    Posts
    607
    Curt,

    I'm using the same bulb. Don't worry about a high ceiling. Just use a dimmer switch.

  3. #513
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,545
    Images
    15
    I'm using the same bulb. Don't worry about a high ceiling. Just use a dimmer switch.
    That sounds good, I'll do just that. Thanks
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  4. #514

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,212
    Images
    47
    curt,
    I'm using a 100 watt bulb

  5. #515

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    178
    I am glad I have a vacuum frame, I think the curl could be a problem with plate glass alone. Look forward to 20 x 24 and G3 especially in the larger size. BTW I use 45 watt reflector for most of my printing. I also have 300 watt for overdeveloped negs. You would be surprised the change in watts changes output very little. The 300 watt reflectors are expensive. I'll use the 45 watt up to about 60 seconds. I like the longer times for dodge and burn.

  6. #516
    timbo10ca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    543
    Images
    39
    I guess it's time to share my experience- this stuff is GREAT! I found mixing the amidol no problem (even fun- chemistry class all over again!), but the filtering was tedious (I have the Chinese stuff). Worth it though! Once I got going with the printing (which ended up being a 10 hour session), I felt quite liberated from the confines of my regular printing workflow of careful temperature control of developer (never deviating from 68F), split contrast printing, f/stop timers, etc etc. I don't know how, but I got lucky with how I set everything up. I put a 300 watt bulb in, about 3 feet or so from the printing frame and was getting nice long, workable exposures to allow dodging (about 60-70 sec). The developer was used at room temp (about 65F) and never checked again all day.

    I did 3 negatives- I used the metronome and outflanking techniques and I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised with how successful I was. 3 negs to my level of "fine art" competance in 1 day with a completely new system, developer and paper is pretty impressive. I must say though, I could have done 5 negs I'm sure, if it wasn't for that damnable curl to the paper...... It made centering the 5x7 neg on the full paper quite difficult. I eventually got a system were I averaged 8-10 minutes a print, but without perfect centering- close enough for matting though. I just used 2 hands in the developer, so the curl was not an issue there. The black floaties were there in the fix and wash, but were no problem to remove. As I was printing 5x7 negs on the 8x10 paper, the edge damage doesn't bother me, but I don't think I'd appreciate it if I had 8x10 negs. It took *a lot* of washing, fixing, and more washing to get all of the amidol yellow out of the paper though.

    I definitely agree that this is a grade 3 paper. I started the session with my standard /reference "N" neg that prints nicely on grade 2 Ilford MGIV and with Ziatype. It ended up needing 10sec amidol and 50sec water bath. That was a bit of guess-work, having never done a water bath before! Having the developer a little cooler probably helped too. I definitely cannot see *anything* going on in that dark cherry developer to know when to pull it for the water bath! I just tried 30sec/30sec then 15/45 and decided 10/50 would probably be the best I'd get and went for it. Still lost some shadow detail in areas that went straight to black, but generally, I like the outcome- it compares very closely to my best version of this neg when printed to a higher contrast (grade 3) to add some punch on MGIV. The only thing I wasn't fond of was that it took on a bit of a greenish cast, even compared to the 30/30 print. This seemed to straighten out somewhat after Selenium toning and drying. A grade 2 or even 2 1/2 would probably have look better though. The next 2 negs seem to print nicest on grade 3 MGIV with the aid of some dodging. They turned out bang- on. I have yet to try some negs that print straight at grade 3- I have some nice ones that will be a good final test of this paper's "true grade" in my hands.

    If this is an equivalent to AZO (which I've never used), I can't for the life of me understand why there are so many recommendations to developer AZO negs to a higher contrast- if anything I needed an "N-1" neg for this paper, making this "N" neg appropriate for a Grade 2 Lodima. An "N+1" neg would not print on this current stuff at all well.... Maybe I'm missing something- much more experienced people than I are saying "higher contrast negs are the way to go for AZO". I'm glad this is not the case for me with Lodima- once the true grade 2 comes out, I will be able to use the same neg for MGIV, Ziatype and Lodima- very convenient and less $.

    Overall, I definitley give this paper 2 thumbs up, and hope to see a grade 2 introduced as well (but not lose this grade 3, as I do often print at grade 3). I'm not sure if it outperforms MGIV FB in all instances, but I find it's warmer color to be pleasing and it seems to give me better mid-tone seperation and detail, more glowing highlights, and maybe even more apparent sharpness. The loss of shadow detail is probably do to its higher grade, and I imagine the true grade 2 would solve this for me. When that happens, I'll be hard- pressed to think of a reason to contact print on MGIV, unless it's a negative that really needs split- filter printing and can't be salvaged in water bath.

    Interesting note (I think so, anyway): the last 2 negs I worked with that print at grade 3 haven't been touched for over a year, and when I compared the prints side by side, I printed them to the identical exposure and contrast- I came to the exact same printing decisions and results with a completely new system after having not printed the originals for many months. I wonder what that means..... Either I've looked at the prints alot over the last year, I have a very certain vision in my mind for these 2 negs, or I may actually finally know what I'm doing ( a little bit ;-P)!

    Tim
    If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso

    http://www.timbowlesphotography.com

  7. #517
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,172
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by timbo10ca View Post
    If this is an equivalent to AZO
    It is in no way equivalent to any Azo paper. Unless the production run is radically different I will have to adjust my printing process somewhat.

    Since I have some Azo left, it makes a difference to me. But for anyone who cannot obtain any Azo, why in the world would you care how Lodima compares?

    BTW, 10 secs in amidol and 50 sec water bath has always produced horrendous mottling in the midtones for me. You might want to back off on the exposure if your shadows are developing out that dense.

  8. #518
    timbo10ca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    543
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    It is in no way equivalent to any Azo paper. Unless the production run is radically different I will have to adjust my printing process somewhat.

    Since I have some Azo left, it makes a difference to me. But for anyone who cannot obtain any Azo, why in the world would you care how Lodima compares?

    BTW, 10 secs in amidol and 50 sec water bath has always produced horrendous mottling in the midtones for me. You might want to back off on the exposure if your shadows are developing out that dense.
    The only reason I cared is because I thought it was a "replacement" that required similarly developed negatives to AZO, allowing AZO users to use their old negatives with ease. Now I don't have to worry about the waste of shooting multiple negatives of a scene (that may be rapidly changing) for the 3 different printing mediums I use.

    I will experiment as you suggest with exposure, but my understanding is that if there isn't enough exposure to get the highlight detail on the paper, no amount of development will bring them out. As it is, the highs and mids look right on. I did a test strip based on the highlights, the opposite as what I'd do for exposing the negative- should I be doing a test strip for the shadows and hope the highlights come in? I've never used graded paper and used split contrast printing to get my highs and lows correct in the past. The lack of mottling may be due to the scene itself, or pure luck on my part. The regions of midtone may be too small in area to show obvious mottling- I'll take a closer look.

    Thanks,
    Tim
    If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso

    http://www.timbowlesphotography.com

  9. #519
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,172
    Images
    6
    They're trying to make it a replacement for Azo. Only time will tell how well they've succeeded. I find it to be at least 3 stops faster than Azo and very difficult to control with many of my negatives because of the < 5 beat exposures (and I use a cadence of 100 beats / minute). Negatives that print on Azo Grade 3 @ 20 to 30 seconds exposure are overexposed at 5 seconds with Lodima. The denser ones that I print on Azo grade 2 (Canadian) do better. If you're not getting mottling with such a small developer/water bath ratio, I'm amazed. What's your secret?

  10. #520
    timbo10ca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    543
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    They're trying to make it a replacement for Azo. Only time will tell how well they've succeeded. I find it to be at least 3 stops faster than Azo and very difficult to control with many of my negatives because of the < 5 beat exposures (and I use a cadence of 100 beats / minute). Negatives that print on Azo Grade 3 @ 20 to 30 seconds exposure are overexposed at 5 seconds with Lodima. The denser ones that I print on Azo grade 2 (Canadian) do better. If you're not getting mottling with such a small developer/water bath ratio, I'm amazed. What's your secret?
    Probably beginner's luck and pure ignorance

    I'm a bit confused at what you're finding. I would think that if Lodima is faster, that would indicate you'd want a more dense negative than that used for AZO. You've shown this to be true when you print the denser negs. This would imply the opposite of what I'm concluding- if I had any more dense negs, my exposure times would be far too long. I have no AZO experience to correlate my Lodima findings to, which is unfortunate but we seem to be coming to exact opposite conclusions (if my way of thinking is correct). I have a hard time believing there's something wrong with my negative exposure and development system because it has proven itself accurate to me, most especially with this test neg I've used.

    What developer are you using? My "N" test neg was developed in Pyrocat HD, as was one of my negs that prints nicely at grade 3 on MGIV- apparently they take much longer exposure times due to the stain. The other neg that prints at grade 3 was one of the very 1st negs I ever made, developed with Ilfosol S. My light meter was way out of calibration and the neg ended up being bulletproof, which is probably why it is taking the same exposure time as my Pyrocat developed neg.

    Like I said, I can't explain my apparent success, but I may find that as I shoot and print more negatives, things may start to fall apart for me. It will be a while before I can confidently say that my system is sound because I had many problems for the first couple years with film testing because I was unknowingly working with that damned light meter that was totally out of whack. It has been reliable for me over the past year though..... The positive thing I got out of this paper and developer was that it was no more difficult to use than the MGIV if the neg was appropriate for the grade. In such cases, it gave a more pleasing print to my eye. I think in the future I will likely have to test print a neg on MGIV to see how it behaves, then move it to the Lodima.

    Tim
    If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso

    http://www.timbowlesphotography.com



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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