Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Replacing Agfa FB...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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

 
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.