Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,973   Online: 1011
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    370
    Images
    16
    Hi


    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hi pellicle

    have you tried split filter printing?
    in the past yes, but my setup at the moment is very basic with a cardboard lighting can fashioned to shield the bulb and hold the filter. I'm working on top of the washing machine in the laundry/bathroom in our small flat.
    Theory: you understand why it should work but it doesn't
    Practice: it works but you have no idea how
    Here theory and practice meet, things don't work and I don't know why
    Homepages: here Blog: here

  2. #12
    pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    370
    Images
    16
    David

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    It sounds like you need a contrastier negative for contact printing on the paper you are using.
    could be ... that's why I posted the linear full range scan.

    I can make a 'pleasing print' by my tried and true test strip method but I wanted to try out some methods I've read here which others swear by (and perhaps others swear at??).

    I know I had some development problems when I was first setting up. I changed from open tray (which were perfect if scratched) to a JOBO 2553 tank rotated not used for inversion or other methods (which gave uneven development / streaks and generally drank developer) to now settling on the BTZS tubes which are giving me the best results for my purposes so far.

    That neg was not one of the BTZS developed one it was JOBO drum

    (aside: I'm keeping the drum to cope with C41 in future as I think I can mix in both 120 and 4x5 sheet in it, but I've given up on it for black and white).

    :-)
    Theory: you understand why it should work but it doesn't
    Practice: it works but you have no idea how
    Here theory and practice meet, things don't work and I don't know why
    Homepages: here Blog: here

  3. #13
    pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    370
    Images
    16
    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    {two sheets in holder both exposed develop one}

    This is also good practice because sheet film is more damage, dust, light leak, and user error prone than roll film, so if something happens to the first one, you have one more shot at it.

    yes, I really like this idea too, but the problem (which you also identify) is that when I'm out for a day hike and I have only 5 holders with me its really more frustrating to find that
    • after taking 3 or 4 shots and I start to warm up and then come across good subject matter and need to use my compact digital to even have an image
    • rather than come home with a few unexposed sheets


    I've just bought a 6x12 roll back to help with this problem
    Theory: you understand why it should work but it doesn't
    Practice: it works but you have no idea how
    Here theory and practice meet, things don't work and I don't know why
    Homepages: here Blog: here

  4. #14
    pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    370
    Images
    16

    I'm a "bloody idiot"

    Well

    if something looks wrong it probably is

    I just repeated the process this morning and get perfect prints with no effort on a #4

    the problem? -> I diluted the dektol 1:1 (like my d-76 film process ... like a moron) instead of 1:3 for my tray process.

    sigh

    well, while I'm on the subject ... I buy dektol as a powder and make the stock solution as per the kodak directions. I normally put 1:3 of dektol into the tray and develop the print for 3 min. I don't do many prints and discard when finished.

    anyone have any thoughts / suggestions on this? (incase my mind is not working on other areas ... sigh)
    Theory: you understand why it should work but it doesn't
    Practice: it works but you have no idea how
    Here theory and practice meet, things don't work and I don't know why
    Homepages: here Blog: here

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    652
    A good negative is one that you can make a good print from. It doesn't matter what grade of paper you need to make that good print.

    As someone already wrote, forget the rules. Just look at the negatives and prints. The only requirement is that you FULLY understand the exposure/development relationship.

    Looking at your negative, best as I can on a computer screen, it appears that your negative lacks sufficient contrast. An understanding of the exposure/development relationship quickly indicates that you needed to increase the development time for this negative. Had you been developing by inspection, you would have immediately realized this and given the negative more development.

    Michael A. Smith

  6. #16
    pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    370
    Images
    16
    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith View Post
    As someone already wrote, forget the rules. Just look at the negatives and prints. The only requirement is that you FULLY understand the exposure/development relationship.
    good advice. I have a set of sheets which I exposed one sunny day at a creek with dark waters bounded by snow. I developed sheets in 3min 6 min and 12 min (where N = 6 min for the temperature I was using). I have been trying to develop my understanding of this. In the last year of making density checks of my negatives (rather than just looking) I feel I've come a long way (although perhaps not as far as I'd like).

    I was surprised to find that even that didn't have the densest area being as dense as the element of a light bulb I photographed and developed normally. I'm sure that there is some substantial difference between the snow and the filament brightness.

    Film it seems handles quite an amount of exposure before it hits a wall.

    The issue for me now is how this negative (and its range of density) can translate to the print (and just how far it can go).

    I've been restricting myself to one film (ADOX) one developer (D-76) and one paper (MG IV portfolio) just so as to not get confused.

    I wish I could compare numbers with people as I find that easier to reconcile with.
    Theory: you understand why it should work but it doesn't
    Practice: it works but you have no idea how
    Here theory and practice meet, things don't work and I don't know why
    Homepages: here Blog: here

  7. #17
    CBG
    CBG is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    ... I was surprised to find that even that didn't have the densest area being as dense as the element of a light bulb I photographed and developed normally. I'm sure that there is some substantial difference between the snow and the filament brightness. ... I wish I could compare numbers with people as I find that easier to reconcile with.
    Some random thoughts:

    I'm not sure I'd use the image of a light bulb filament as an absolute standard for evaluating negatives. I presume you processed that too.

    Similarly, I'm not sure a snowy scene is the best for getting the hang of a "normal" developing time, etc. A scene composed of really dark and really bright elements and probably a rather extreme contrast may lead you astray. A set up with a full range of mid tones as well as a modest representation at the extremes would be the easiest starter.

    I think that comparing numbers with someone else is less useful than what you are doing now; doing prints and finding out where you can improve. The numbers are good for a lab, but won't do the important work of creating a proceedure based upon your results.

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    ... I developed sheets in 3min 6 min and 12 min (where N = 6 min for the temperature I was using) ...
    Great start - the idea of geometic jumps in developing times as a test series is exactly the way to do it. When you are more zeroed in on a time, you can do jumps at a smaller increment of time. Use the FStop series as a basis. Half stop or third stop series and you will find you can fine tune film development. I keep a set of those numbers handy for all sorts of uses. I calculated them wayyy out into the thousands for just such tasks as yours.

    Given that you needed grade 4 to get a good print, maybe you need to push your film developing time further to build enough contrast so it works better on grade 2 or 3.

    Best,

    C

  8. #18
    pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    370
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by CBG View Post
    I'm not sure I'd use the image of a light bulb filament as an absolute standard for evaluating negatives. I presume you processed that too.
    sure, I actually included it in a 'scene' to give myself some measure of what it the darkest and brightest that the film would capture. I feel I got valuable data from it

    Quote Originally Posted by CBG View Post
    Similarly, I'm not sure a snowy scene is the best for getting the hang of a "normal" developing time, etc. A scene composed of really dark and really bright elements and probably a rather extreme contrast may lead you astray. A set up with a full range of mid tones as well as a modest representation at the extremes would be the easiest starter.
    sure, again this was also a taylored experiment as I was trying to understand what effects it had on highlights and being able to retain tonality.

    Quote Originally Posted by CBG View Post
    Great start - the idea of geometic jumps in developing times as a test series is exactly the way to do it
    thanks for the feedback, I kind a got the idea from a book (the one by by Phil Davis) but anyway ;-)
    Theory: you understand why it should work but it doesn't
    Practice: it works but you have no idea how
    Here theory and practice meet, things don't work and I don't know why
    Homepages: here Blog: here

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