Dodge This: Wet Printing and Alternative Processes

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Dodge This: Wet Printing and Alternative Processes

rohan: Mar 19, 2008; Look, if you had one shot
or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
in one moment
Would you capture it...
or just let it slip?

"THEIR"

I took a darkroom printing lesson yesterday and I think I've found my new favourite thing in photography :neckbeard:

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 01:05

rohan: Mar 19, 2008; Look, if you had one shot
or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
in one moment
Would you capture it...
or just let it slip?

"THEIR"

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.
The actual measurements of Ilford 13x18 cm paper is 12.7 x 17.8 cm.

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?

# ¿ Jan 17, 2016 12:10

rohan: Mar 19, 2008; Look, if you had one shot
or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
in one moment
Would you capture it...
or just let it slip?

"THEIR"

Is there an appreciable difference between a 00 and 0 filter for split-filter printing? I'm using a public darkroom right now that has several sets of Ilford filters, but none of them include a 00 filter.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2016 12:24

rohan: Mar 19, 2008; Look, if you had one shot
or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
in one moment
Would you capture it...
or just let it slip?

"THEIR"

McMadCow posted:

I teach an advanced darkroom class and I start my students off using 00 and 5 just for the sake of simplicity. In my own practice I actually do 0 and 5. I find that for a main exposure, the 00 reduces the contrast just a little too much so I stick with 0. I've been doing it for a very long time, however, and it is a very small distinction that I doubt most people would notice. 0 is fine if you don't have a 00 and there's very little chance you'll see the difference.
You really should have your own set of filters though, if you're working at a place with such iffy equipment. Consistency is your friend.

Thanks, I'll do some test strips in my next session and see if I can tell any difference, but it's good to know it won't ruin the shot either way.

Also, I don't want to give the wrong impression about the darkroom -- their sets of under-the-lens filters seem complete, except they have a safelight filter where the 00 filter should be. They do have 00 filters for the filter drawer, but that doesn't do me any good for the 4x5 enlarger. I might pick up my own set anyway, just to guarantee a scratch-free set.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2016 11:29

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Dodge This: Wet Printing and Alternative Processes