|
I miss wet printing. Last time I had my darkroom stuff set up proper was in summer 2012, and I haven't had a home suitable for it since then. I've made a few contact prints but that's all. Meanwhile the negatives I want to print are piling up, and my paper is sitting around unused. On the other hand I'm pretty sure the bottles of LPD developer I mixed up back then are still good, at least those I've left unopened. Get a can of LPD powder, seriously. It's a good developer. When they call it the "Lasting Paper Developer" they aren't lying. Ikea used to have a great darkroom lamp too, the entirely red LAMPAN at $5 or so, unfortunately they discontinued that model for a different color. Finally, if you love wasting photographic paper, try doing developer-less contact prints. Leave objects (such as negatives) on the paper, in direct sunlight, and wait a couple minutes. You should get a visible image then. The exposure time obviously depends on actual lighting conditions. Just make sure to cover the paper before taking it to a darker place for the fixer bath.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Put them in a frame, keep flat with glass.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Thanks, green tea has been my favorite so far. I still want to try coffee and wine though. Definitely try developing your paper in Caffenol. Hopefully you like coffee-stained paper. I also tried a red wine based developer (almost identical to Caffenol, but red wine instead of coffee), I didn't like the result much. The wine dyed the paper a dark blue, causing the overall contrast to be pretty bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
The numbers must be the contrast grades, yes. Development will work exactly the same as any other paper so go ahead and try it. Like old films, the sensitivity of the papers might have deteriorated, so experiment with it. The exact graduations you'll see on the paper will probably be different from what you see with multigrade paper, since there is only a single emulsion with a single contrast curve, instead of 2, 3 or 4 different emulsions with different sensitivities that combine to form a single curve. Looks like an awesome find. Edit: I see a load of Ilfobrom. Get ready. nielsm fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Tonight I tried some of that expired Ilfobrom FB paper. The box of 5x7 grade 2 paper was actually unopened, but was kind of warped so getting it in the easel was tricky, but it's still good! That makes me wonder, is it reasonable to soak warped paper before exposing to flatten it, then exposing it while damp?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
If your glossing-dryer can keep the fabric stretched tightly, you can try using it cold. That has worked for me. I think the heating element is only supposed to be used for making prints fully glossy, and also requires some special liquid or wax or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Hi, just wanna say that this paper is really beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I've reused developer several months later.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
You can put about as much or as little work into wet printing as you want. You can spend hours on a single negative, to find the perfect exposure with split-grade printing, dodging and burning in various amounts for each grade. Or you can mass produce prints from a roll of film by just assuming the negatives are decently exposed and printing them all at grade 2, exposing each sheet the same amount. Then you can print one negative in less than 5 minutes, even less if you make small prints and are okay with exposing multiple negatives/sheets and put away, to build up a batch to develop together. As I've posted previously, I've literally had partially exhausted paper developer last years in a glass bottle. Apart from that, paper developer and fixer can usually be diluted extra, you may get somewhat different contrast, and longer processing times, but you can save on chemistry that way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 19:09
|
|