Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2004
From digital to traditional?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Rob Landry - 04 Nov 2004 03:44 GMT Well, I'm standing on the brink of setting up a traditional darkroom and need a little gentle persuasion. My days of working in the digital darkroom may soon be at an end.
For a little background, I shoot 35mm E6 and 4x5 in E6 and B&W. I do my own film processing (Jobo CPP-2) but for the last few years, have been printing using digital techniques. While I do enjoy the control I am able to get when making prints, the computer is the beast that is provoking this urge to switch. I desire to get away from the tyranny of Microsoft and the endless parade of upgrades, patches, downloads, crashes, drivers, formatting, backups, service packs, and virus scans. It seems that for every hour spent making a print, at least twice that is spent maintaining the hardware and software. Between the Epson and it's clogs and Windows and its bugs, I'm beginning to think I'm am IT specialist and not a photographer. My most recent episode involved the purchase of a nice Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. Very nice upgrade to my aging scanner, but my "old" PC does not have firewire or USB 2.0 ports. No problem I thought to myself, "I'll just purchase a USB board and all will be well." Of course, nothing is that simple in PC land. Suffice it to say that after 15 hours of mucking around, no scanner; the Minolta remains comfortably in its box. 15 hours and not one new print!
So, now that I've gotten that off my chest, I need to know the ins and outs of printing color (from trannys) under an enlarger. B&W I'm familiar with, but color has me a little concerned. With Ilford's troubles, what will become of Ilfochrome? I don't want to invest the time to master that medium only to find out it will be extinct. Barring that, how do the chemicals store? What about paper? Can paper be refrigerated or frozen? How hard is it to get the colors correct with Ilfo? I know that contrast masking is pretty much a given for Ilfochrome, but is it possible to do with 35mm? What do I need to consider and would others who print color in the darkroom advise such a switch?
Thanks, Rob
Pieter Litchfield - 04 Nov 2004 03:50 GMT Rob: why stop now? do what I did - go to plain old chemical B&W - it's simple, requires a minimum investment in equiement and materials and will take me at least one lifetime to come close to understanding (not even going to use the term "mastery").
I have spent 40 years in a digital world, and I will only do digital photography when I can no longer find film, paper and chemicals.
> Well, I'm standing on the brink of setting up a traditional darkroom > and need a little gentle persuasion. My days of working in the digital [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Thanks, > Rob Gregory W Blank - 04 Nov 2004 04:15 GMT > Well, I'm standing on the brink of setting up a traditional darkroom > and need a little gentle persuasion. My days of working in the digital [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the Minolta remains comfortably in its box. 15 hours and not one new > print! Think Macintosh "Like in Apple" None of those issues.
> So, now that I've gotten that off my chest, I need to know the ins and > outs of printing color (from trannys) I hate that description for Transparencies, conjures all sort of "negative" sexual thoughts :-)
>under an enlarger. B&W I'm > familiar with, but color has me a little concerned. With Ilford's > troubles, what will become of Ilfochrome? I don't want to invest the > time to master that medium only to find out it will be extinct. Well buy all the Ilfochrome you can if thats what you intend.
> Barring that, how do the chemicals store? What about paper? Can paper > be refrigerated or frozen? How hard is it to get the colors correct > with Ilfo? I know that contrast masking is pretty much a given for > Ilfochrome, but is it possible to do with 35mm? What do I need to > consider and would others who print color in the darkroom advise such > a switch? If your doing Ilfochrome from 35mm you probably want make enlarged dupes so you can mask, Your better off using a bigger enlarger as well because Ilfochrome is painfully slow and a little 35mm enlarger will make the exposures for larger prints very long.
You can refrigerate any color paper (Its a good idea)
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Michael A. Covington - 04 Nov 2004 06:28 GMT Hmmm, I don't spend 15 minutes a week on maintaining our 4 computers at home. Windows can be set to update itself automatically, of course, and there's usually not more than an update a month anyhow.
I maintain a lab at work (with technicians' help, all closely supervised by me) with over 50 PCs, and crashes are extremely rare.
Whenever people tell me they find Windows incredibly buggy and crash-prone, I have to ask the following tough question: Is your *hardware* unreliable? Even a perfect OS wouldn't run perfectly on buggy hardware.
I'm afraid Windows is getting the blame for a certain number of motherboard, memory, and power supply problems. People always say "Windows crashed" rather than "my hardware crashed." In reality, you can't tell... except that if Windows XP or 2003 bluescreens, it's almost certainly hardware.
Frank Pittel - 08 Nov 2004 19:01 GMT How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run linux of bsd on the same hardware??
: Hmmm, I don't spend 15 minutes a week on maintaining our 4 computers at : home. Windows can be set to update itself automatically, of course, and : there's usually not more than an update a month anyhow.
: I maintain a lab at work (with technicians' help, all closely supervised by : me) with over 50 PCs, and crashes are extremely rare.
: Whenever people tell me they find Windows incredibly buggy and crash-prone, : I have to ask the following tough question: Is your *hardware* unreliable? : Even a perfect OS wouldn't run perfectly on buggy hardware.
: I'm afraid Windows is getting the blame for a certain number of motherboard, : memory, and power supply problems. People always say "Windows crashed" : rather than "my hardware crashed." In reality, you can't tell... except : that if Windows XP or 2003 bluescreens, it's almost certainly hardware.
 Signature Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com
Anoni Moose - 09 Nov 2004 01:46 GMT > How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run > linux of bsd on the same hardware?? Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by hw manufacturers. But that said, "Windows" and "Windows" aren't the same. Windows XP is *really* *dramatically* better in terms of stability as compared to Windows 9x or Windows ME. Completely different OS's. Of course if flaky hw drivers are installed, flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify drivers).
Mike
P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade of it a year or two ago.
Frank Pittel - 09 Nov 2004 02:09 GMT : > How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run : > linux of bsd on the same hardware??
: Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what : they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify : drivers). I don't want to dwell on PC's and windows vs. linux since it's off topic here. I don't understand your comment on an os being "harder" on the hardware. Either the hardware operates within spec or it doesn't. A "flaky" driver is a software problem not hardware.
: Mike
: P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with : certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably : has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade : of it a year or two ago. The need to reboot windows 9x was actually "builtin" the OS itself. There were timers that ran which couldn't operate on a machine running longer then a given period of time (I forget how long).
 Signature
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com
Anoni Moose - 09 Nov 2004 18:39 GMT Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
> I don't want to dwell on PC's and windows vs. linux since it's off topic here. > I don't understand your comment on an os being "harder" on the hardware. Either > the hardware operates within spec or it doesn't. A "flaky" driver is a software > problem not hardware. It's a variation of an old philosophical problem. If the hardware has a bug/fault in it, but the feature is not used, is the hardware still broken?
You hear, for instance, of some processors having bugs with certain instructions. Software that don't use that instruction work fine while others have a problem -- all on the same platform. Likewise, there can be other problems in hardware even to the point of something having to be accessed within a certain short period after something else for a problem to be shown -- and some software will do it and some not. There can be features in peripherals that some software uses and others don't and if the problem is in that feature... you get the drift.
Also, some folk will push their hardware (overclocking it) and one of the problems that can occur is pattern sensitivity of memory accesses. Again, that'll affect some software and not others.
So if hardware shows a problem one way, and goes away another, question is whether not seeing the problem means it's not there (back to the philosopical question which historically doesn't seem to have an answer -- it's not as easy as the chicken-egg problem or the forest-noise problem).
Mike
The Wogster - 09 Nov 2004 16:27 GMT > How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run > linux of bsd on the same hardware?? I don't know about Bsd, I have run every Linux from .99 Kernel on up to the latest 2.4 (machine doesn't need 2.6 -- one of the OSes nicest features IMNSHO). I have observed every version of Windows from 3.0 on up to XP and come to the conclusion that the only thing Windows is good at is in it's X box configuration running Halo.
I have only seen Linux crash 3 times since 1995, ALL were hardware related. I have only seen Windows not crash under one condition -- when the machine is turned off.
W
jjs - 10 Nov 2004 14:50 GMT Frank Pittel wrote:
> How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can > run > linux of bsd on the same hardware?? Hey Frank: I had a 3b2 that ran for over fifteen years. 'course it was pretty useless on the 'net, but it ran until the day we threw it into the dumpster.
Jean-David Beyer - 10 Nov 2004 17:54 GMT >> How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows >> can run [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > related. I have only seen Windows not crash under one condition -- when > the machine is turned off. I have run Linux only since mid 1996 (RHL 5.0), upgrading from time-to-time. And getting new computers and discarding the oldest one.
RHL 5.0 and 6.0 crashed on rare occasions. I never figured out why, but it was almost certainly _not_ hardware, because upgrading the kernel eventually (not always the next kernel) fixed it. The X Window System crashed more often (totally dead keyboard, so I could not Ctl-Alt-Backspace, or Ctl-Alt-PF[1-6] my way out. But I could get in with ssh from another machine on my LAN and fix things.
IIRC, these problems ended with Red Hat Linux 7.3 (I upgraded from RHL6.2 straight to RHL 7.3. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has never crashed (I started running that on my newest machine in March 2004), nor have the versions of X Window System that came with it.
A friend had a Dell Dimension 200 with 64Meg RAM. It came with Windows 95. It did what Windows does best, and eventually became intolerable to her. After she got a paid "expert" in to fix it, it was no better. I went over and ran badblocks and memtest-86 and everything tested fine. I installed Red Hat Linux 7.3 just to check the hardware. She said she was sick of Windows and willing to try Linux (a computer novice in her late 60s) and it worked perfectly for several years. Finally, I think I found out the problem: the IDE controller quit -- I think. In any case, A new hard drive did not fix the disk errors according to badblocks. Possibly the IDE controller was bad earlier and that is why Windows did not work as well as it originally did. The machine did not deserve a new motherboard, so they got two new computers which, unfortunately IMAO, run Windows XP.
The reason for all the Red Hat references is that it was the first distro I used and I have never tried any others. But most of these remarks probably apply to the others.
 Signature .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 12:40:00 up 18 days, 15:33, 3 users, load average: 4.20, 4.25, 4.19
The Wogster - 10 Nov 2004 18:45 GMT >>> How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows >>> can run [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Ctl-Alt-Backspace, or Ctl-Alt-PF[1-6] my way out. But I could get in > with ssh from another machine on my LAN and fix things. I started wuth Slack, moved to Caldera (boo-hiss),then Mandrake to cure and application problem -- the db I was using ran fine on 'drake, wouldn't run on Caldera. Currently the only Linux here is Smoothwall running on the gateway. Windows ME yesterday forgot the DNS address, so Internet access dumped for a while, only internal machines were visible until I found the problem.....
The biggest advantage though to non-Windows systems, are that you actually can find a problem. I don't know how many times, where the only info Windows offers is to contact your system administrator ... I am the @#!$#@% system administrator! This is no help people!
Now, back to photography, if I could get my hands on a scanner with decent Linux drivers that don't cost extra or only work half a**ed, or drive you inSANE, along with PS Elements running native, then I would be happy to put 'drake back on here......
W
jjs - 10 Nov 2004 19:08 GMT > The biggest advantage though to non-Windows systems, are that you actually > can find a problem. I don't know how many times, where the only info > Windows offers is to contact your system administrator ... I am the > @#!$#@% system administrator! This is no help people! If you do not know the underlying system, then you wouldn't understand the error messages anyway. There _is_ a command interface, you know.
The Wogster - 11 Nov 2004 03:42 GMT >>The biggest advantage though to non-Windows systems, are that you actually >>can find a problem. I don't know how many times, where the only info [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you do not know the underlying system, then you wouldn't understand the > error messages anyway. There _is_ a command interface, you know. It's just almost completely useless, and everything depends on a file that can not be repaired if broken. I once had a problem, where the machine hung during boot. Okay, boot to dos mode, except dos mode can't use the fat32 file system without loading some of the drivers, except something there is causing the crash. Okay, go to the last known good configuration, if gives me a message that it can't do that. What is the use of a last known good configuration, if you can't go back to it? Okay, go back to the oldest registry version you have, nope can't do that either. Had to use Linux to scrape what I could off the partition, and park those files on another drive, then rebuild the HDD. Fun the first time, less fun the second.....
You shouldn't need to be a MCSE to read an error message and have it make sense, just write the messages in the local language.
W
LR Kalajainen - 11 Nov 2004 12:59 GMT I would have switched to Linux years ago except that I approach this thing backwards: While hating Windows (though confessing that XP for me has been very stable--any crashes have been due to inadequate RAM), I LOVE WordPerfect and will do whatever it takes to keep from having to use Word which falls far short in almost every comparative test that matters to me. So, while Corel had a short fling with a Linux version of WP, as long as WP is only available for Windows, I'm stuck with being a Microsoft hater, but reluctant user.
>>> How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running >>> windows can run [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > distro I used and I have never tried any others. But most of these > remarks probably apply to the others. The Wogster - 11 Nov 2004 14:32 GMT > I would have switched to Linux years ago except that I approach this > thing backwards: While hating Windows (though confessing that XP for me [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of WP, as long as WP is only available for Windows, I'm stuck with being > a Microsoft hater, but reluctant user. Try OpenOffice and see if that works for you..... A lack of RAM should not crash the system, that's a serious bug if it does. It's because a programmer neglected to check a memory allocation to make sure that it was successful, this is bad in an application, in an operating system, it's irresponsible of the vendor.
W
otzi - 04 Nov 2004 14:34 GMT > Well, I'm standing on the brink of setting up a traditional darkroom > and need a little gentle persuasion. My days of working in the digital [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Thanks, > Rob Doesn't this just sum it all up.:-) Thanks for the tidy summery. With your permission I will use this quote (paraphrased) to state the case for common sense when ever the urge of modern madness overcomes those mortals swept up with the urge to partake in the latest 'thing' just for the sake of being 'with it' what ever that means. I wonder how many ever realise that marketing is not so much to forward our collective state rather to benefit the originator of said marketing often at our expense.
 Signature Otzi
Nicholas O. Lindan - 04 Nov 2004 20:56 GMT > the case for common > sense when ever the urge of modern madness overcomes those mortals swept up > with the urge to partake in the latest 'thing' Today's modern madness is tomorrow's safe, sane and sensible ...
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Uranium Committee - 04 Nov 2004 16:26 GMT Transparencies are not designed for printing. If you want prints, take negative film too.
> Well, I'm standing on the brink of setting up a traditional darkroom > and need a little gentle persuasion. My days of working in the digital [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Ilfochrome, but is it possible to do with 35mm? What do I need to > consider and would others who print color in the darkroom advise such
> a switch? > > Thanks, > Rob Gregory W Blank - 04 Nov 2004 17:32 GMT > Transparencies are not designed for printing. If you want prints, take > negative film too. Using conventional printing techniques thats quite good advice! & The method I have been following.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Gear?id ? Laoi/Garry Lee - 04 Nov 2004 20:45 GMT Stick at digital. Much simpler and more control
I printed darkroom stuff, mostly B&W but also some colour for about 20 years. Colour is really tedious to get right and you more or less cannot control contrast, which is no problem digitally.
My advice.
If you DO want to do darkroom stuff, stick at B&W
Gregory W Blank - 05 Nov 2004 01:46 GMT > Stick at digital. > Much simpler and more control [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If you DO want to do darkroom stuff, stick at B&W Color is only tedious if you:
a) Don't have a color dichroic lamphouse. b) Don't have a roller transport processor. c) Don't have patience or are some what color blind. d) Have sloppy exposing habits that require contrast control.
And I've been doing color printing for twenty years in my own Darkroom. Bottom line with adequate equipment it is cheaper in terms of time versus inkjeting say 100 copies, and less money than having them printed by a lab.
I agree though digital scanning and output does afford one controls not existant in wet darkroom work, like retouching therefore I use it as well for what its worth. The goal should be make images that don't need retouching.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Tom Phillips - 08 Nov 2004 20:25 GMT > > Stick at digital. > > Much simpler and more control [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > If you DO want to do darkroom stuff, stick at B&W Garry Lee's advice is worthless and shows he doesn't know anything about photography. _Color_ printing is easier than B&W. Anyone can do color. I can show a ten year old how to make good RA4 prints in less than an hour and they won't need digital retouching...
> Color is only tedious if you: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > existant in wet darkroom work, like retouching therefore I use it as well for > what its worth. The goal should be make images that don't need retouching. Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning of making a good photograph without retouching...
Gregory W Blank - 08 Nov 2004 21:41 GMT I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start.
> Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning > of making a good photograph without retouching... Given the current state of C41 processing, I am highly tempted to start doing it myself as well. Including proofing my own wedding work, las week in reviewing a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative.... I am highly PO'D
Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak. I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused)
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Gregory W Blank - 08 Nov 2004 21:52 GMT > I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing > in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 > and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused) Should have read:
Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak. I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 and or 7 minutes,....tetenal says add 16% more time (I am soooo confused)
Thanks.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Rob Landry - 09 Nov 2004 03:39 GMT Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in message news:
> Should have read: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks. I use 7:30 for Fuji Velvia and Provia and 6:30 for Kodak films. This is for Kodak chemistry in a Jobo rotary processor and these times include the fill and drain time. The 7:30 gives me correct density for Velvia when rated at E.I. 50. If you're used to rating Velvia at 40, 7:30 may be a tad long. The extended time for the first developer has something to do with the increased oxidation of the chemistry due to the rotary agitation.
Gregory W Blank - 09 Nov 2004 04:02 GMT > Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in message news: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > something to do with the increased oxidation of the chemistry due to > the rotary agitation. Ok seems reasonable, what I am looking to ultimately do is pull the film 1 and two stops any experience you have on those time increments?
TIA!!
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Claudio Bonavolta - 10 Nov 2004 22:51 GMT > Ok seems reasonable, what I am looking to ultimately do is pull the film > 1 and two stops any experience you have on those time increments? > > TIA!! http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/e6.htm at the end of the page the push/pull times.
Regards,
 Signature Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
Tom Phillips - 09 Nov 2004 05:49 GMT > > I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing > > in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 > and or 7 minutes,....tetenal says add 16% more time (I am soooo confused) I've never used Tetenal so I don't know but would follow Jobo's instruction there..
Like I say, I _start_ with 7 minutes. The strips tell you what time and/or temp adjustments to make. I would also follow Jobo's rotation speed recomendations.
Tom Phillips - 09 Nov 2004 05:43 GMT > I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing > in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start. Far simplier than computers and programs and digital calibration and abstractions like device color space. And far less exspensive with better quality IMO.
> > Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning > > of making a good photograph without retouching... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative.... > I am highly PO'D Quality and control is why I began doing my own color film processing. It all depends on if you do enough work to make it economiocal vs the extra time. Course it's also fun..
> Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak. > I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 > and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused) There is no set time, as in according to different films. Time (along with temp/agitation/rotation speed) is simply one of the adjustments in controlling speed and density. I'd start with the recommendations in the Z119 ROTARY-TUBE PROCESSORS instructions, since that's what your using (assuming you already downloaded the E6 manual.) I always start here (7 minutes at 38C) and while my time and temperature adjustments vary per batch of chemistry they usually stay in that range. I think I've gone as long as 7.5 minutes.
The choice of a time and temp is up to you; you really just pick and then adjust according to the control strip readings. The range of development time is between about 6 to 8.5 minutes, so 7 is about the middle, meaning you probably don't want to be making control strip adjustments toward either extreme ends of time and temp as you'll likely have to make large adjustments as opposed to smaller ones, plus have less latitude in those adjustments.
> LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank > > "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, > or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Tom Phillips - 08 Nov 2004 20:23 GMT > > Transparencies are not designed for printing. If you want prints, take > > negative film too. > > Using conventional printing techniques thats quite good advice! > & The method I have been following. I always made color prints from transparencies. Though it's getting a bit harder now that Kodak has unceremoniously discontinued it's internegative film. But if you can find a lab that does internegs (I think Fuji still makes it) a contact interneg makes a beautiful RA4 prints IMO. In fact, I've sold mural sized prints from contact internegs and historically always preferred that over straight color negative film.
Ah, nostalgia...
Nicholas O. Lindan - 04 Nov 2004 20:53 GMT > It seems that for every hour spent making a print, at least twice that > is spent maintaining the hardware and software [with an] endless parade > of upgrades, patches, downloads, crashes, drivers, formatting, backups, > service packs, and virus scans. That's funny:
It seems that for every hour spent making a print, at least twice that is spent mixing solutions, setting up temperature baths, pouring liquids, dusting negatives, making test strips, washing trays, tanks, tongs and reels, washing, drying, making contact sheets, filing, mopping the floor, wiping down counters ....
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Dieter Zakas - 09 Nov 2004 02:04 GMT >> It seems that for every hour spent making a print, at least twice that >> is spent maintaining the hardware and software [with an] endless parade [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. When it comes to the washing part, there IS the dishwasher. Depending on what model one has, wine, roses and a romantic evening may be required to start the cycle.
Sniffing the developer,
Dieter Zakas
Phil Glaser - 05 Nov 2004 00:02 GMT > For a little background, I shoot 35mm E6 and 4x5 in E6 and B&W. I do > my own film processing (Jobo CPP-2) but for the last few years, have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It seems that for every hour spent making a print, at least twice that > is spent maintaining the hardware and software. I'm so glad to hear that it's not just me. I spend all day in front of a computer for my day job, and so the idea of having a computer and its foibles in the way of my creative endeavors is frightful. That being said, I did recently do a whole bunch of digital shooting with a cheapo digicam. It was for a class where the teacher wanted me to just shoot tons and tons of photos. So I did that and it was indeed helpful to see the results immediately and the like. And then I went to make a print and things turned out to be not so easy. Yes, we have issues with controls in the darkroom -- voltage fluctuations that affect print exposure for example -- but I had no idea how many unidentifiable goblins can affect the tone of a print generated by an inkjet printer. More power to you!
--Phil
John Bartley - 05 Nov 2004 00:17 GMT >Well, I'm standing on the brink of setting up a traditional darkroom >and need a little gentle persuasion. My days of working in the digital >darkroom may soon be at an end. A bit of encouragement from a complete newbie/amateur ::
I have no trouble with computers. I have a big fast machine in the office, two laptops floating around the house, two scanners, printers, cable and wireless networks, DSL, a dedicated office/computer room etc - the whole flippin' shebang!! I love them!!
but..............
I have been repairing antique radios for 33 of my 46 years, but that doesn't stop me from having a rack full of solid state stereo stuff in the computer room so that I can convert analog to digital and play it in my trucks. A lot of my CDs are OTR (old time radio). They're great to listen to.
and...............
I have had film cameras since I was a kid, but had never done my own developing. As recently as this past June, I discovered monorail cameras. I had never heard of such a thing, and thought that only chemists and mad scientists could do their own developing. Boy was I wrong! I also have a digital camera and I love it too. It's kinda' hard and sorta' expensive to sell antique radios on eBay by making a negative for each picture that you're going to post, so for each job there's a tool.
Why do "traditional" or "antique" or "old fashoined"? Strictly for fun, education, adventure, life experience, horizon widening, curiosity, you pick one or more, and have at it. There's no reason to bail out of the other completely. Just do both, and have fun!
cheers
 Signature regards from ::
John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5
( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?)
Claudio Bonavolta - 06 Nov 2004 16:00 GMT > Well, I'm standing on the brink of setting up a traditional darkroom > and need a little gentle persuasion. My days of working in the digital [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the Minolta remains comfortably in its box. 15 hours and not one new > print! No comments on that ...
> So, now that I've gotten that off my chest, I need to know the ins and > outs of printing color (from trannys) under an enlarger. B&W I'm > familiar with, but color has me a little concerned. With Ilford's > troubles, what will become of Ilfochrome? The last news I had was they'll keep the high quality paper (polyester base) and drop the cheaper RC ones. But until their problems aren't gone, everything, the worst included, can happen.
> I don't want to invest the > time to master that medium only to find out it will be extinct. It's not Ilfochrome, it's printing from a slide that you'll learn and this will still be useful with other positive material whatever it they are.
> Barring that, how do the chemicals store? P-30 This is the amateur version and is sold in a 2x1-liter pack. One liter is used pretty quickly (13 prints 8x10", 5 prints 12x16"), you shouldn't have to keep them for long. The kit unopened is said to last 3 years. Diluted in full bottles, 2 months and partially filled bottles, 1 month. Once used, chemicals are mixed together and dumped, their formulation is intended to neutralize each other. A partial reuse (some used + some new) of the chemicals is possible, this may give a light loss of quality but nearly doubles the capacity of them. The included leaflet indicates the quantities per sheet.
P-3 More intended for professional use and is sold in larger quantities but you can mix just what you need. They are all liquids except a component of the developer which is a powder in a very small quantity to difficult to split. I tried to dissolve it alone in water but it doesn't. I don't know what this powder may be (the MSDS wasn't that clear for me) but if someone knows in what I can dissolve it to split easily the quantities, I would be grateful ... P-3 gives a slightly higher contrast than the P-30. If you do a lot of printing, this is the way to go as it is *much* less expensive than the P-30. NEVER MIX THE USED CHEMICALS TOGETHER BEFORE DUMPING: I did it once and the mix produces so much sulfur dioxyde to be nearly asphyxiated ... You should neutralize the chemicals separately, dilute them with lots of water before dumping them. Read the notice carefully.
P-3X Intended for replenishment, I've no experience with it.
I usually print color only when I have enough slides to use completely the chemicals.
> What about paper? Can paper > be refrigerated or frozen? Yes.
> How hard is it to get the colors correct with Ilfo? Pretty easy in my opinion. Simpler than negative as, if your print is to yellow, just remove yellow or add blue (magenta+cyan). With negative material, if your print is to yellow, you have to *add* yellow ...
> I know that contrast masking is pretty much a given for > Ilfochrome, but is it possible to do with 35mm? Despite all we often read, silver masks are *not* that compulsory with slides printing. Before this extreme you can do traditional dodging/burning during the exposure like in B/W. Coupled with a medium-contrast paper (CLM-1K), 80-90% of my slides are printed very successfully this way.
Silver masks are more required with high-contrast paper (CPS-1K). This is the preferred paper for the "Masters", together with the silver mask(s) they can acheive a very high local contrast while keeping a normal global contrast. Don't start with this at the beginning, practise Ilfochrome some months before trying more complex techniques.
By the way, silver masks are possible with 35mm (it is used also in B/W), mainly contrast reduction unsharp masks which are the easiest to do. Registering is the most difficult task. There are not so many registering tools for 35mm, I manage to register them by eye but this is not obvious at all. Do a Google search with keywords like "unsharp masking". I started a page on the topic on my website but it's still under construction and in ... french. Anyway, there are some pictures of the tools I use: http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/fr/photo/mask.htm
Other links: http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/fr/photo/masking101.htm http://www.maskingkits.com
> What do I need to > consider and would others who print color in the darkroom advise such > a switch? Why not, it's pretty easy to acheive a good quality. Becoming a master requires much more time. Well, nothing different from B/W, anyway ...
> Thanks, > Rob Some more comments:
Ilfochrome is a pretty slow surface as it incorporates all the dyes in the emulsion and the process will remove the "excess" of them. As a starting point try an exposure 3 stops longer than a B/W Ilford Multigrade paper (without filters).
Despite what many believe, positive papers are very low contrast because the original, the slide, is very contrasty. This has many advantages: - exposure variations are *much* less sensitive. With negative papers (B/W or color) an exposure difference of 1/10th of a stop is already visible. With positive paper, half stop is not a lot at all, you'll pretty often have to change the exposure by a full stop or more. Working in stops is a good habit, especially when dodging/burning. - same comment with filtration, especially at the beginning, change it by 10CC, not less
Doing a contact print of the slides is not silly, especially if your print from different films types. This print is already a good start to help you to adjust exposure/filtration without wasting to much time and material. Kodak sells a Filter Viewing Kit that helps also for the filtration. Often with the same film type and same light conditions, filtering is similar to identical.
Ilfochrome, like all other materials, is also sensitive to reciprocity failure. For color material, this means color shifts too, so, we play more with the diaphragm to keep exposures in a reasonable range.
The ultra-glossy surface of the polyester base papers is *very* fragile, cotton gloves are advised when manipulating them. In the dark you can see (well, hear ...) which side is the emulsion by passing your finger nail on it, if it does make some noise (a kind of "sssss"), then it's the back.
Processors: - rotary models (Jobo, etc ...) are easy, use the minimal quantity of chemicals, are versatile when you change paper size, can also develop films, but are pretty slow. - slot models (Nova, etc ...) are faster but limited to a size of paper, going to a larger size requires a new processor. - table-top processors (Fujimoto, Ilford, Durst Printo, ...) are really nice: a friend borrowed me an Ilford ICP42/IWD42, you get the print in 15' dry-to-dry without any manual intervention ... I managed to do 10 prints 12x16" (30x40cm) in a single evening. Some do replenishment Price is pretty high (but you may find someone doing the opposite travel than you, i.e. going digital) and they require a fairly large amount of space.
Of course, an enlarger with a dichro?c color head is strongly advised.
I certainly have missed some points you'll discover by your own :-)
Best regards, Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
|
|
|