 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2003Walls around the enlarger - black and white question.....
I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to give up my old space for other uses. I have known that this was coming for a while, and so I had quite a bit of time to plan out the new darkroom, and construction is going well. Then my wife asks a simple question that has me thinking..... There is a maze like light trap to get into the darkroom, rather than a door - the walls of this maze will be painted flat black. The rest of the walls inside the darkroom will be painted white. There is a small alcove with room for the enlarger and a 24" wide set of drawers, with walls on three sides. My wife says that I should paint the walls in this alcove flat black as well, so that white light from the enlarger doesn't reflect back onto the paper, fogging it - it makes a lot of sense, but I haven't seen that before - and it sounds wierd. Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) > I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to > give up my old space for other uses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) My whole darkroom is painted 18% grey except the white ceiling. Your wife is correct.  Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank >My whole darkroom is painted >18% grey except the white ceiling. Your wife is correct. Why paint the darkroom 18% grey? I considered painting the walls a yellow colour, so that white light reflecting off of them would be somewhat 'safe', but still provide some light - white, assuming that most of the light is from safelights, and reflecting it around makes it easier to see, and does not adversely affect sensitive papers, and black which would eliminate reflections alltogether, making it the safest, but hardest to see. I never considered grey - I'd be interested in your rationale. (having said that, my floor is grey, and probably pretty close to 18%, the reason for the colour choice there was that this colour paint was on sale :) ) > >My whole darkroom is painted > >18% grey except the white ceiling. Your wife is correct. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and probably pretty close to 18%, the reason for the colour choice > there was that this colour paint was on sale :) ) One can use any color, except grey or black reduce light that spills from the enlarger, grey is nuetral and I print color. Darker colors in the event of a very slight darroom light leak will absorb some small amounts of ambient light. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank Good point, if you do color prints the whole room should be neutral-colored, not yellow. >>My whole darkroom is painted >>18% grey except the white ceiling. Your wife is correct. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and probably pretty close to 18%, the reason for the colour choice > there was that this colour paint was on sale :) ) I didn't go too much into the thought process on this, it just seemed like a good idea, and I didn't want either black or white, for obvious reasons. Plus I don't like yellow that much, except when I get it on a split toned print. :) I have always used a white surround with no problems. The enlargers that I have used through the years have never leaked light to an appreciable extent, and when it appeared that more was leaking, it was usually a matter of assuring that everything was aligned properly to stop a potential problem. Th reason that I like a white surround, is that it reflects enough light from the safe light to find my glasses which I remove when using the grain focuser (also so I see the beer and do not knock it over). Dick > I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to > give up my old space for other uses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) > I have always used a white surround with no problems. The enlargers that I > have used through the years have never leaked light to an appreciable [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > from the safe light to find my glasses which I remove when using the grain > focuser (also so I see the beer and do not knock it over). I have flat black walls around the enlargers, and bright white at the sink. I like to have the enlarger area as dark as possible; IMHO, it makes focusing easier. Since building my current darkroom, the wall color has become more of a moot point, as I am doing more color than B&W. As for the glasses, they go in my mouth when I use the grain focuser, and the beer stays over on the wet side, in an ice bath! Ken > [...] > As for the glasses, they go in my mouth when I use the grain focuser, and > the beer stays over on the wet side, in an ice bath! Tip: do _not_, not _ever_ use a clear photographic graduate to hold Guinness in the darkroom. It looks too much like Rodinal, and gets soooo confusing! Yah, I'm well developed. :) > > [...] > > As for the glasses, they go in my mouth when I use the grain focuser, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Guinness in the darkroom. It looks too much like Rodinal, and gets soooo > confusing! Yah, I'm well developed. :) Interesting you bring that up, I've been considering the similarities of used PMK and several of the Ales I drink whilest in the midst my darkroom. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank My advice : Paint your darkroom flat white matte paint cheapest one. This way, the safelight will reflect evenly and help lit the whole space. BUT, surround the enlarger with flat black matte paint. Mine is surounded by wall tiles (I use a spare bathroom). I was unable to get something more contrasty than a grade 1 until I cover the tiles with flat black plastic sheeting... Reflected light FROM the BASEBOARD produced so much flare my prints where awfull ! (my enlarger does not leak, a pro DURST) Have a nice day ! > I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to > give up my old space for other uses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) SignatureCe message est constitué d'au moins 50 % d'électrons recyclés. Aucun électron n'a été blessé ou forcé d'aucune manière pendant l'écriture de ce message. S'il vous plaît aidez nous à conserver nos ressources, recyclez vos électrons ! > I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to > give up my old space for other uses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) There are a lot of people who paint the area around the enlarger black. Whether this makes a difference depends on how much light leaks from your enlarger, and how much light makes it past the maze light trap. Personally I think it is a good idea. I used yellow. That way I can see the light leaks, but the paper can't. Black is okay, but works by absorbing *all* light. Yellow/amber is better because black and white paper tends to be insensitive to this color. So any white light that happens to hit those walls will absorb the light to which bw paper is sensitive and reflect the light to which bw is not sensitive. Ever notice the color of those Speed-Ez-El easels? The yellow/amber walls make for a brighter working environment if only because the light from the safelight hitting the walls is reflected rather than absorbed. > I used yellow. That way I can see the light leaks, but the paper can't. > snips... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > snips... I use and have seen this setup and it works very well. Even with a light-tight enlarger, light from the paper can reflect back as you state. The biggest problem with this is loss of maximum contrast when you need it. Score two big points, one with the wife and one with your darkroom work. Paint the corner flat black. For what it's worth, Howard Bond's darkroom is set up with flat black walls in the corner near the enlarger. SignatureDave Poinsett (Remove DO-NOT-SPAM from email address for direct reply) For what it's worth........ For 25 years I have always painted the surface of my easel flat black to reduce light reflecting back up through the paper base. I just insert a sheet of white paper for composing and focusing. Maybe 4 years at R.I.T. was not wasted! Rick > > snips... > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Paint the corner flat black. For what it's worth, Howard Bond's darkroom is > set up with flat black walls in the corner near the enlarger. > I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to > give up my old space for other uses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) 1. If the light in the room is safe (safelight illumination) then there's no reason to use anything but a light color, as the reflected safelight is still safe. 2. If there is white light coming in anywhere or emitted from the enlarger, that light should be kept away from areas where sensitized materilas are being handled, either by traps or by felt draping. Paint, even black paint, will still reflect light. Felt traps light much better. See a fabric store. [SNIP] > 1. If the light in the room is safe (safelight illumination) then > there's no reason to use anything but a light color, as the reflected > safelight is still safe. As stated by a great many others, you must also consider the light reflected from the easel and baseboard (why are most baseboards at least partially reflective?). This light is not safe, and CAN be reflected back to the paper (if sufficently strong) and would work in the same manner as flashing the paper and reduce the overall contrast available from the paper. What's worse is it may only flash a portion of the paper and lead you to have strange and unpredictable results that you don't (at first) understand why. > 2. If there is white light coming in anywhere or emitted from the > enlarger, that light should be kept away from areas where sensitized > materilas are being handled, either by traps or by felt draping. > Paint, even black paint, will still reflect light. Felt traps light > much better. See a fabric store. In any darkroom where printing is occurring, there IS white light. It comes from the lens of the enlarger at the worse possible time. When you have the paper in the easel and are exposing it. This light is the light used to expose the paper. If it is able to reflect from any surface (one of which is certainly the paper itself), then the possibility exist for the paper to be fogged. You are correct in the ways to prevent this from happening. However, there is no "if" in the presence of white light. > [SNIP] > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > worse is it may only flash a portion of the paper and lead you to have > strange and unpredictable results that you don't (at first) understand why. I cannot imagine a situation where light reflects from the paper up to the wall and then back down again, except in such minute amounts as to be absolutely insignificant. Light reflects at an angle equal to the angle of incidence. What you're proposing is therefore impossible. And no light should be coming from the lamphouse either, or you've got a crummy enlarger. > > 2. If there is white light coming in anywhere or emitted from the > > enlarger, that light should be kept away from areas where sensitized [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In any darkroom where printing is occurring, there IS white light. It comes > from the lens of the enlarger at the worse possible time. What do you mean? Light is coming from the lens to the paper, where it's SUPPOSED to go. What I was referring to was white light from leaks, etc. > When you have the > paper in the easel and are exposing it. This light is the light used to > expose the paper. If it is able to reflect from any surface (one of which > is certainly the paper itself), then the possibility exist for the paper to > be fogged. You are correct in the ways to prevent this from happening. > However, there is no "if" in the presence of white light. mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > I cannot imagine a situation where light reflects from the paper up to > the wall and then back down again, except in such minute amounts as to > be absolutely insignificant. Light reflects at an angle equal to the > angle of incidence. What you're proposing is therefore impossible. And > no light should be coming from the lamphouse either, or you've got a > crummy enlarger. Every enlarger leaks a little light, no matter what MS would have you believe. I have used almost every commercially available enlarger in my 32 years of printing and its just a fact. How much depends on which enlarger you are using. In fact, the Durst horizontal 2500 Laborator leaks so much, that the color department has to have the whole thing shrouded in duvateen during mural printing so as not to fog the print, even with the walls painted black. Many people do tape parts of the enlarger where the light escapes, which is fine. Also, many professionals have found the use of white smocks to be bad for printing, especially for longer exposures, as when the printier is standing close to the easel, burning and dodging, the light hitting the paper reflects off the white smock and gives increased exposure/fogging to the print. Alexis www.alexisneel.com > mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > I cannot imagine a situation where light reflects from the paper up to > > the wall and then back down again, except in such minute amounts as to > > be absolutely insignificant. Light reflects at an angle equal to the > > angle of incidence. What you're proposing is therefore impossible. And > > no light should be coming from the lamphouse either, or you've got a > > crummy enlarger. > Every enlarger leaks a little light, no matter what MS would have you > believe. I have no doubt you are correct, though my enlarger does not emit any light that I can see. > I have used almost every commercially available enlarger in > my 32 years of printing and its just a fact. How much depends on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fog the print, even with the walls painted black. Many people do > tape parts of the enlarger where the light escapes, which is fine. Seems like poor design to me. > Also, many professionals have found the use of white smocks to be bad > for printing, especially for longer exposures, as when the printier is > standing close to the easel, burning and dodging, the light hitting > the paper reflects off the white smock and gives increased > exposure/fogging to the print. STEP AWAY FROM THE ENLARGER, SIR! PUT THE TONGS DOWN AND STEP AWAY FROM THE ENLARGER! DO IT NOW! (The Darkroom Police) mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > Seems like poor design to me. And you use...? > > Also, many professionals have found the use of white smocks to be bad > > for printing, especially for longer exposures, as when the printier is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (The Darkroom Police) WOW! you actually have a sense of humor. That was funny. Nice change from the usual...dreck hehe > mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > Seems like poor design to me. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > WOW! you actually have a sense of humor. That was funny. Nice > change from the usual...dreck hehe Hah! I have seven senses of humour! mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > > > STEP AWAY FROM THE ENLARGER, SIR! PUT THE TONGS DOWN AND STEP AWAY > > > FROM THE ENLARGER! DO IT NOW! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hah! I have seven senses of humour! Must resist the urge...................... > mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Must resist the urge...................... Back to the topic: I checked my enlarger, and found a tiny light leak at the top caused by a loose cover plate on the side of the enlarger, which is removed to add a color head. I tightened the screw and that fixed it. > Back to the topic: > I checked my enlarger, and found a tiny light leak at the top caused > by a loose cover plate on the side of the enlarger, which is removed > to add a color head. I tightened the screw and that fixed it. Ahh yes, we all knew you had a screw loose, nice of you to admit it. :-) Are you sure there's not a "Nut" loose in front of the enlarger as well. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > > Back to the topic: > > I checked my enlarger, and found a tiny light leak at the top caused [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ahh yes, we all knew you had a screw loose, nice of you to admit it. :-) > Are you sure there's not a "Nut" loose in front of the enlarger as well. Send me a 35mm neg you can challenge me with, and I'll see what i can do. > > Back to the topic: > > I checked my enlarger, and found a tiny light leak at the top caused [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ahh yes, we all knew you had a screw loose, nice of you to admit it. :-) > Are you sure there's not a "Nut" loose in front of the enlarger as well. ROFLMAO!!!! :) > mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > Seems like poor design to me. > > And you use...? A Rolleimat with a Focotar-2 50mm f/4.5. Nice feature is the remote-control focus. > > > Also, many professionals have found the use of white smocks to be bad > > > for printing, especially for longer exposures, as when the printier is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > WOW! you actually have a sense of humor. That was funny. Nice > change from the usual...dreck hehe <snip> >> Every enlarger leaks a little light, no matter what MS would have you >> believe. > > I have no doubt you are correct, though my enlarger does not emit any > light that I can see. To see the light leaks, put the cap on the enlarging lens, turn off the safe light. Expose normally. It may not be Christmas Eve at the White House, but if you haven't sealed your enlarger it most likely leaks. Bill > 2. If there is white light coming in anywhere or emitted from the > enlarger, that light should be kept away from areas where sensitized > materilas are being handled, either by traps or by felt draping. > Paint, even black paint, will still reflect light. Felt traps light > much better. See a fabric store. The problem with felt or any other material, it traps dust. Flat black or grey paint around the enlarger will reasonablely reduce any light output from the enlarger.....but if doing very critical work like making dupes....or direct postive prints you can tape off the enlarger as needed. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to > give up my old space for other uses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) you can get some fogging with white walls. However, black walls always seemed to dark for me. Therefore, I painted my rooms a little lighter than 18% gray. Didn't make the darkroom too dark and didn't reflect any light. God luck Alexis www.alexisneel.com > you can get some fogging with white walls. However, black walls > always seemed to dark for me. Therefore, I painted my rooms a little > lighter than 18% gray. Didn't make the darkroom too dark and didn't > reflect any light. My thoughts exactly. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > I am in the process of building a new darkroom, since I'm having to > give up my old space for other uses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Any opinions? (stupid question in this forum, I know) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NO stupid questions here:-) I agree with your wife. My darkroom masquerades as a kitchen part of the time so I can't paint it. However, I have a drape of black Duvetine (the stuff used around movie screens) on the walls near my enlarger. I've done this mainly because it seems good practice. Some light from the enlarger can hit the walls when I am cropping and the enlarger has some leak light despite efforts to eliminate it. A black drape may be an alternative if you don't want to paint. The best paint for this, BTW, is Krylon Ultra-Flat Black. Its available in spray cans. -- Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com > However, I have a drape of black > Duvetine (the stuff used around movie screens) on the walls near my > enlarger. I've done this mainly because it seems good practice. Some > light from the enlarger can hit the walls when I am cropping and the > enlarger has some leak light despite efforts to eliminate it. > The best paint for this, BTW, is Krylon Ultra-Flat Black. Its > available in spray cans. Love the Duvetine idea. Where can I get some? I have a large drying cabinet next to the enlarger than I want to cover with a drape. Duvetine sounds like the right stuff. Amen to the Krylon. Krylon makes a "Camoflage" series. Their Camoflage black is the flattest, blackest paint on the market. I decided to paint my darkroom with oil base paint to control dust. But that stuff is expensive. I caluclated that I needed three gallons. So I went to a large paint store and bought three gallons of "OOPS" paint -- mistakes of various colors of interior alkyd-based enamel being sold off for $3 per gallon. Turns out when you mix almost any three random colors you get something that could best be described as 18% beige. No joke. If you try this "oops" trick, be sure that you don't use exterior paint because it contains additives that will sluff off a fine dust you DON'T want in a darkroom. >Amen to the Krylon. Krylon makes a "Camoflage" series. Their >Camoflage black is the flattest, blackest paint on the market. Is the Camouflage series actually different paint, or is it just a re-labeled Ultra Flat Black? SignatureBrian Reynolds | "But in the new approach, as you know, reynolds@panix.com | the important thing is to understand http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what you're doing rather than to get NAR# 54438 | the right answer." -- Tom Lehrer |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.