Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2006
Replacing Agfa FB...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Gareth - 04 Feb 2006 08:55 GMT I've been printing on Agfa FB for the last 8 or 9 years and am now trying to find a substitute.
Does anyone have any recommendations? And any comments on how their recommends differ from Agfa?
Tried Ilford FB Warmtone and Multigrade IV today. Quite liked the Warmtone - seemed to have a surprisingly good tonal range at grade 3 - 3 1/2.
I tried flashing with it - a flash seems to take around double the time Agfa did to fog. But when I tried flashing (a little below the fogging level) it killed the midtones.
Only did one print on the Multigrade IV - a jazz print, very underexposed negative. Grade 5 didn't seem to be as high in contrast as I'm used to. Split printing completely failed to work (by the time I'd printed the shadows down to black, the midtones were overexposed).
Can anyone give me any guidance / comments on Ilford FB Warmtone and Multigrade IV?
Thanks Gareth
Hans - 04 Feb 2006 09:24 GMT > I've been printing on Agfa FB for the last 8 or 9 years and am now > trying to find a substitute. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanks > Gareth Hello Gareth,
Here you can see http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/wwpal.html the Ilford equivalents for Agfa products.
Greetings, Hans
http://surf.to/HansBrouns
UC - 04 Feb 2006 19:48 GMT Why are you flashing? Of all the insane things I have ever heard, flashing tops the list...
People spen years trying to develop the proper safelights, and then iiots like you FLASH your paper?
I have NEVER flashed paper. NEVER!
> I've been printing on Agfa FB for the last 8 or 9 years and am now > trying to find a substitute. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanks > Gareth Jan Tieghem - 04 Feb 2006 22:28 GMT I never flash either. In case I might come across the need of darkening highlights to make them show more detail, I use filter #00 of my VC head for a _local_ burn-in. I occasionally make prints this way, none ever showed any tracks of this kind of burning in, as it only affects the highlights and leaves midtones and shadows unchanged.
| Why are you flashing? Of all the insane things I have ever heard, | flashing tops the list... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | > Thanks | > Gareth Gareth - 04 Feb 2006 22:57 GMT Nuh - won't touch it. I did a jazz series a few years ago - shot it with my M6/M7 with Tri X rated at around 1600 and developed in Xtol. Hard to print neg.s went with the territory.
These days I used Tri X in Xtol for pretty much everything
But, in all seriousness, I think there would be few photographers who didn't have any neg.s that wouldn't benefit from flashing - including large format, landscape photographers. And I know a few who use it.
Cheers Gareth
Jan Tieghem - 06 Feb 2006 18:13 GMT I agree on what you wrote, Gareth, but I consider local burn-in with a soft filter much more accurate, as it leaves the other parts of the image unaffected, while flashing covers the whole print. Don't be afraid of trying it!
Jan
| Nuh - won't touch it. I did a jazz series a few years ago - shot it | with my M6/M7 with Tri X rated at around 1600 and developed in Xtol. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | Cheers | Gareth gareth.jolly@minterellison.com - 07 Feb 2006 08:23 GMT Yes, I do a bit of both.
First, with flashing, you can do a partial flash - that is, flash part of the paper (using a sheet of cardboard waved under the flashing enlarger). You can even deliberately lightly fog part of the paper (post exposure) in its easel (in which case, as an aesthetic matter, you will be relying on other parts of the print for true white). However, you don't get the precision you can with burning - because you can't see the image when you're doing it.
Secondly, flashing and burning are conceptually different. Flashing (in effect) increases the sensitivity of the paper - primarily affecting the printing of the highlights. Burning has a more uniform effect - increasing shadows, mid tones and highlights.
Regards Gareth
UC - 07 Feb 2006 16:08 GMT Flashing is ridiculous. Why bother with safelights then?
> Yes, I do a bit of both. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Regards > Gareth David Nebenzahl - 07 Feb 2006 16:32 GMT UC spake thus:
> Flashing is ridiculous. Why bother with safelights then? Well, as ridiculous as flashing may be (I think it probably is), there's a difference between it, which is at least under the user's control, and fogging due to non-safe light, which isn't.
>>Yes, I do a bit of both. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>affecting the printing of the highlights. Burning has a more uniform >>effect - increasing shadows, mid tones and highlights.
 Signature If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.
- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_
Gareth - 07 Feb 2006 20:38 GMT I come back to what I said originally
- fine printers do use flashing
- it is different in use and effect to burning
- before you dismiss it, you should try it! Properly!
Cheers Gareth
Jan Tieghem - 08 Feb 2006 22:35 GMT | I come back to what I said originally | | - fine printers do use flashing as they use soft burning-in
| - it is different in use and effect to burning ... with the same filter as the one you printed with, whereas burning with #00 is to my feeling very close to flashing. I'd call it flashing with the negative itself serving as a 'mask', hence much more accurate.
| - before you dismiss it, you should try it! Properly! ... just as one should try soft burning. I never need flashing anymore.
| Cheers | Gareth BTW - ever tried soft or hard flashing? If you never heard of it, just read "Way beyond monochrome" by Ralph W. Lambrecht & Chris Woodhouse. Recommended!
have fun printing!
UC - 04 Feb 2006 19:48 GMT Why are you flashing? Of all the insane things I have ever heard, flashing tops the list...
People spen years trying to develop the proper safelights, and then idiots like you FLASH your paper?
I have NEVER flashed paper. NEVER!
> I've been printing on Agfa FB for the last 8 or 9 years and am now > trying to find a substitute. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanks > Gareth Gareth - 04 Feb 2006 21:26 GMT You should try it then!
It needs to be carefully controlled, of course - which means you need a second enlarger. Stop down the lens to its minimum aperture; crank the enlarger to full height then do a test strip with half the paper covered throughout the process (use, say, 1 second intervals). Count the number of exposures! This is important.
Now, when you look at the test strip, you need to pick the point before the paper fogs. This is where the covered half of the paper is critical - it gives you a white to compare the other side of the paper to. Work out the point just before the paper fogs. (for which you'll need to know the number of exposures)
Flashing is extremely useful for blown highlights - especially where burning isn't practical (e.g the highlights are caught up with other detail)
The theory is that you are reducing the amount of light from the negative needed to register on the paper - useful for very dense parts of the negative.
You can also partially flash a sheet of paper - i.e one area only - to avoid closing shadows & midtones in the other areas.
I should also say that I've been taught flashing by one the best fine art printers in Australia.
But back to my question, Ilford Warmtone FB doesn't seem to respond well to it - at least when I flash to a point just before the paper fogs. Maybe I need to back it off a little.
UC - 04 Feb 2006 21:40 GMT > You should try it then! > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > burning isn't practical (e.g the highlights are caught up with other > detail) You should hardly ever have blown highlights. I'll bet you're using T-Max 400, arent you?
> The theory is that you are reducing the amount of light from the > negative needed to register on the paper - useful for very dense parts [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > well to it - at least when I flash to a point just before the paper > fogs. Maybe I need to back it off a little. Nicholas O. Lindan - 04 Feb 2006 23:27 GMT > Stop down the lens to its minimum aperture; crank the > enlarger to full height then do a test strip with half the paper > covered throughout the process (use, say, 1 second intervals). Count > the number of exposures! I put marks on the paper/easel at regular intervals with a magic-marker. It makes counting out invisible test strips much easier: "how many no-seeum exposures did I make before I see this one?"
I have had luck running a flash test strip series as a second exposure on top of the normal pictorial one. Again, as Gareth suggested, half the paper is covered when the flash test is done.
I put a heavy ND filter in the enlarger for flashing, it makes it exposure times longer and easier to deal with.
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
|
|
|