|
BANME.sh posted:In an effort to keep this thread from falling into archives... That print looks great, I've been meaning to try printing from color negs especially now that I have some good ones from my Japan trip. What kind of exposure times did you use?
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Thanks! 30 seconds at filter 00 and 4 seconds at filter 5 F11 on a 100mm lens, not sure if that makes a difference. I was also using a 6x9 neg and the print is only 5x7.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Thanks! OK, I was wondering if by long exposure you meant 30 sec or 5 minutes... I'll do some experiments, it'll be kinda different anyway because I'll be doing 35mm, but at least I know the ballpark.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Yeah I guess that's relative. I am used to exposures in the 8-10 second range. According to Ilford, BW prints from color should require exposures 3-4 times longer than normal, so I guess my experience is accurate. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
It's because you have your grades flipped - 00 will be the lowest contrast, so you use that to get your highlights, not your shadows. 5 is the highest contrast so you use that to get your shadows. It should work in either order (though there are various reasons to prefer one order or the other). Also, if your exposure times with the 5 filter are too short, stop down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Yeah I kinda realized that I mixed something up when I was typing it out. Was waiting for somebody to correct me, thanks for the reminder. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Thanks! It's weird, my prints from color negatives needed less time than the b&w. B&W neg, f/8 for 15 seconds:  Color neg, f/8 for 5 and 7 seconds, respectively:  
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Well I managed to black out the bathroom, the chemistry still seems to be working (LPD stock developer mixed several years ago still good!) and there's room for the enlarger too. And got loads of negatives to print. Something odd about the enlarger though... oh, the lens is missing. Where the hell did I put that? .... an hour and a half later. I find the lens. Together with the unshot film. In the fridge. Maybe I can do some real enlargements now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
I'm teaching an advanced darkroom practice class in SF and my first session is tonight. We'll see how well I can school these kids on split filter printing, and whether or not I'll have converts by the end of the workshop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
My 8x10 paper got here today, so I tried some prints. First one of my favorite B&W shots: Then, after a few attempts I got one of my favorite color shots printed (even with test strips it ended up taking 3 prints to get something I really liked)  The others aren't terrible, I'll probably take one in to hang up at work. The "winning" combination turned out to be 35s at f/5.6 with the 3.5 filter, followed by 2 seconds or so (timer isn't super precise) of f/11 with no filter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Nice, I need to experiment more I think. I find that even though I am using RC paper, the prints have too little contrast after they've hung to dry for a couple hours vs when I first take them out of the rinse bath. Also I think 3 sheets per print is pretty common. I need to start getting used to using test strips to conserve.
BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:...I am using RC paper... Stop this. Knock it off. Really. STOP IT. STOP IT. DON'T DO IT. You kids are the reason I drink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
It's good for learning. Plus I picked up about 1000 sheets of it in various sizes, expired, but still works good. When I'm ready to make actual Art, I'll buy the good stuff. I actually have quite a bit of Ilfrobrom FB paper, too. I made some test prints with it and it is indeed amazing quality, but I don't think any of my photos are worth wasting it on yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Dumb idea I got: Throw regular laser prints into enlarger and blow up a lot. has anyone tried that? Is it worth wasting time and paper on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Dumb idea I got: Throw regular laser prints into enlarger and blow up a lot. has anyone tried that? Is it worth wasting time and paper on? If you're willing to make those compromises, just get inkjet transparencies and make digital negatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:If you're willing to make those compromises, just get inkjet transparencies and make digital negatives. I have plenty of analog negatives in queue to print. I was more wondering if it would have an interesting effect to it or anything. Maybe enlarge a paper negative for that extra texture...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Dumb questions about an enlarger: I have had an enlarger with Durst M 370 BW head around for a long time but never bothered to set it up due to space constraints. I finally assembled it this weekend, and notice a few possibly wrong things. Is the filter tray supposed to look like this?  It looks like there is very little support to keep a filter in place, but I don't have any filters the right size just yet. More importantly though, it can't be right that you can see straight from the filter tray opening to the lamp, can it? I mean, even when the tray is in place it looks like the light will hit the condenser directly, instead of being forced through the filter. I think there is some inner wall missing? E: I do have below-lens filters though they're weak. The head also does have a mirror in place to route the right through the condenser. Finally, would it still be possible to find kits to upgrade it to handle 6x6 or 6x7 negatives or will I be stuck using it for only 35mm? nielsm fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Finally, would it still be possible to find kits to upgrade it to handle 6x6 or 6x7 negatives or will I be stuck using it for only 35mm? I don't know your enlarger, but AFAIK for most you only need a suitable negative carrier and a longer focal length lens to enlarge MF.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I don't know your enlarger, but AFAIK for most you only need a suitable negative carrier and a longer focal length lens to enlarge MF. On this one, the opening from the lamp house to the negative carrier is only slightly larger than a 35mm frame so that wouldn't work. The condenser (I think it's a condenser?) is sized for that opening too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
loving piece of poo poo enlarger timers. One I have is an old Soviet-ish thing with horribly unsafe mains plugs, and essentially analog electronic countdown that feels like it isn't entirely properly calibrated. The other is an Ilford electronic thing supposed to be super fancy, but it uses some kind of really flimsy resistive touch sensing for the buttons and it just fails constantly. I need something new. (And I have done the manual on-off thing and hate it.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Is there a European equivalent of Gralab?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Is there a European equivalent of Gralab? This maybe... http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/darkroom/viponel-labtime-enlarger-timer-analogue.html 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
nielsm posted:This maybe... We use them in college. They're decent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Got an anthotype (pokeberry emulsion) cooking in my attic window. Based roughly on the current climate here it should be ready by Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
 So I got two boxes of colored paper and no idea how a color darkroom is set up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
No safety light, and you use CMY filters to balance the colour rather than the Multigrade filters you usually for multigrade black and white paper. The RA-4 process is a standard process like C-41, so you process the paper identically in the dark for each step, and adjust the colour/saturation of the print through the exposure only. You'll need this kind of chemistry: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/11812-Arista-RA-4-Color-Print-Processing-Kit-2-Liter And these kind of filters if your enlarger isn't setup for colour: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/31636-Arista-RA4-Color-Filters-6x6-in.-22-Pack And then you need to learn all about subtractive colour and how to adjust for colour temperature and tint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
I read that assuming your C-41 film is stored properly, exposed properly, and developed properly, that once you dial in the proper settings for any one type of film stock, you can re-use those CMY settings for any of the same film stock. Any truth to that, or is that just an "in theory, but never happens in practice" kind of thing? I have everything I need to do RA-4 at home except for the paper and chemistry, but I'll have to do it at room temp in trays and I don't know how successful that would be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I read that assuming your C-41 film is stored properly, exposed properly, and developed properly, that once you dial in the proper settings for any one type of film stock, you can re-use those CMY settings for any of the same film stock. Any truth to that, or is that just an "in theory, but never happens in practice" kind of thing? White balance of each picture. Assuming a daylight-calibrated film, you'd still get overly blue pictures if you shoot in shade, etc. I suppose it can be a good starting point, or find e.g. three or four filtrations for one film: Daylight, shade, night, tungsten.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I read that assuming your C-41 film is stored properly, exposed properly, and developed properly, that once you dial in the proper settings for any one type of film stock, you can re-use those CMY settings for any of the same film stock. Any truth to that, or is that just an "in theory, but never happens in practice" kind of thing? You'll need to dial in the CMY for every shot, but if you're working with the same film stock, developed at the same time, you'll only need to make small adjustments. I've done colour printing with this kit at room temperature, it worked pretty great: https://www.macodirect.de/en/chemistry/color-chemistry/ra-4/4480/rollei-digibase-ra4-print-kit-for-1l?c=651 Also the Rollei C-41 kits work at room temperature really well too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Hi, just wanna say that this paper is really beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
If I wanted to print a negative as a negative what would I have to take into account with the positive paper? How does it work with filters? The Harman DPP tech sheet seems to say it's fine, and filters make a difference, but they only show a 3 1/2 filter. What about exposure times? Am I looking at longer or shorter exposure times? They say the paper is about ISO 1 to 3, how does this compare to regular multigrade paper? I know I could make test strips, but the paper seems quite expensive and I'm in a perpetual state of brokeness. I've just come into a negative that I much prefer as a negative image in comparison to a positive. I'd quite like to see it printed large in it's negative format. Maybe my first step should be printing the negative from a scan as the negative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Considering the cost of direct positive paper, consider making an intermediate paper "negative", i.e. a regular positve print of your negative in the final size, then use that for contact printing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Considering the cost of direct positive paper, consider making an intermediate paper "negative", i.e. a regular positve print of your negative in the final size, then use that for contact printing. How would I contact print from, say, and 8x10 of a 35mm print? I have a regular print, but I don't know how I'd turn that into a negative, if that's what you're saying? Or how I could make a 35mm positive from the negative? I presume something transparent would be involved at some stage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Couldn't you just use a super long exposure through the print?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Yeah you can print through paper prints. It might be best to use a glossy RC paper to get the least paper texture in the contact print, I haven't tried it myself. Paper negatives are definitely possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yeah you can print through paper prints. It might be best to use a glossy RC paper to get the least paper texture in the contact print, I haven't tried it myself. I've been working on a project shot solely on 8x10 paper negatives and printed in an enlarger. The negatives themselves are very contrasty, but the process of printing through an enlarger reduces the contrast quite a bit, so expect to use a #5 filter.  Eva at the House by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
I took a darkroom printing lesson yesterday and I think I've found my new favourite thing in photography  We used RC paper and my only really successful print was a 4x5 contact, but I'm really excited about getting back in soon to do some proper enlargements on fiber base and learn about split filtering. That said: I'm thinking it could be a fun project to shoot some 4x5 portraits and contact print them onto 5x7. I'm thinking something like this would work as a frame, but I don't understand why the Australian website gives different dimensions. As long as the mat (/mount) size opening is the same (12 x 17cm) I should be alright, yeah? (Apologies if this is more a General Questions question, just wanted to tack this onto my gushing about darkroom printing.) [edit: posted the wrong link to the Aussie website, fixed rohan fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
13x18 cm is the name of the sheet size. So the paper can be kept in place by the passepartout, the opening obviously has to be slightly smaller. The actual measurements of Ilford 13x18 cm paper is 12.7 x 17.8 cm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
nielsm posted:13x18 cm is the name of the sheet size. So the paper can be kept in place by the passepartout, the opening obviously has to be slightly smaller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
rohan posted:Thanks, it just threw me a little bit that the US Ikea site lists mat measurements and the Aussie store only lists "mount openings" (and the frame size is slightly different in both directions). I guess mat, mount and passe-partout are all equivalent terms here? Yeah, different terms for the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 13:00
|
|