Fun in the dark...room.

Discussion in 'The Darkroom' started by timor, Nov 21, 2015.

  1. timor

    timor Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    839
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Last night session was about controlling brilliance of the print. 35mm negative was shot in even, somewhat diffused light. For the first print with filter #2 analyzer predicted 7" of exposure. After 2' 45" in developer came out this:
    #01.jpg
    Obviously I put the probe in the wrong spot, this paper develops in 3 to 5 min. (Could be longer to.) It was too fast but one thing came out, filter #2 is soft. So now #3 in action, exposure time same, 7"
    #02.jpg
    3 min. and much better, but still not, what I figured. Filter #3.5, time 11"
    #03.jpg
    3 min. and little too dark but the tonal separation between the chain and the kettle is almost there. With 9" of exposure and 3' in the developer
    #04.jpg
    things are in place. That's my final version.
    All prints are 5x7 made on warm paper. Relatively strong developer and not too long dev times kept the image in black - brown tonal range.


     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Rick58

    Rick58 Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,218
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Location:
    Reading, Pa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I don't know Timor... Just my opinion and 2 cents, but I like the overall tones in #4 with one exception. I think you lost some of the fine texture in the chain links which are better in #3
     
  3. timor

    timor Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    839
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Thanks for respond.
    I know, what you mean. This is a little problem. Depends on what screen I am looking at this, I see differences. Those are scans from prints straight from scanner. As I am film hardliner (lol) I don't ad any other digital manipulation.
    This session was a multiple exercise. Firstly I shot it on film I never used before, Ilford Pan 400. I went for development in x-ray developer ( made in Montreal), so no any developing charts. Developing time was an educated guess and looks like I got it right. Second thing was to find the "punch line" in print. #1 has all the texture in chain and basically the ratio of intensity of colour between this two objects (the pot) is the same. The difference is reflectance which started to be visible with growing contrast. Honestly I decided on that print and it is arbitrary, not prints are very much OK. My goal was to leave just enough texture in the chain to achieve the maximum possible tonal separation. Look also on areas above and bellow the pot. The final goal is a much bigger print, than this. This print represents about 65% of the negative. Soon I will post print containing 14%. That was also another goal, to see, how the emulsion behaves really.
     
  4. timor

    timor Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    839
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    OK. Little closer look at that emulsion
    #05.jpg
    This is 14% of the negative printed on 5x7 paper. Effectively it would be print size 13x19. Grain is fine, from ISO 400, not top shelf film one might expect worst. But film doesn't hold acutancy. At least from what I can see in that print. X-ray developer is formulated for acutancy and max resolution, plus I used it in semi stand mode.
    #12.jpg
    This picture is same 14%. Different developing method. This time my very standard use of HC110 was employed. (Not the solution B, lol ! ) Grain is little heavier, but in range. Acutancy the same, soft. So far looks like this emulsion has lesser resolution than DXN. And I think no surprise. Pan 400 is directed at amateurs, is of lower price. DXN is a top quality professional emulsion not even sold in open market.
    Nevertheless it is still nice emulsion
    #11.jpg
    able to produce decent 8x10.
    And another "stab" at x-ray developer. This time for both: negative and print.
    #13.jpg
    Yes, for both. It is another part of test, to see is x-ray chemicals could be used in regular darkroom with ease. As they are cheap and readily available to anyone from the nearest dental supplier, they are worth investigation. And they will be available as dentists keep old x-rays machines as a back-up. LOL, You can never trust your computer 100%, but you can totally relay on old, good, tried and true Kodak products. LOL. Looks, like Reuter has also recently problems with digital photographs send by it's agents. But for different reasons.
    And now 14% of above image
    #14.jpg
    And all the same. Grain better, than HC110, acutance so-so.
    But developer proved itself as paper developer. Used 1+3 developing power is the same like Dektol, but is more resistant to oxidation plus looks like it has a cooling effect on tonality of the print. Very nice.
    So to anyone, who has a darkroom, but think chemicals cost too much, go to dental supply and buy it at the half of the price normally paid at photo outlets. LOL And, it is the same Kodak stuff, just with different label.
    Tests on Pan 400 will continue as I have good source for it and for me it's FUN !
     
  5. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    40,008
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I notice that shots 3 and 4 have a slightly softer, slightly blurred look to them, most easily seen down on the bottom, in the chain and the leaf. Was the enlarger bumped during the print exposure? Did the negative "pop!" during the exposure time? What has happened? Why is the chain blurred in the last couple of prints, but so much more crisp in the first two prints? Or is the issue in how the prints have been scanned or photographed?
     
  6. timor

    timor Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    839
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yes, you're right. I gonna have to check actual prints for that. I admit, I am no master of scanning and anyway it is old, rather office grade Canon scanner. However bigger suspect would be my enlarger. It is 50+ years old C2. Head has lock, but lensboard not, may drop. I gonna have to pay attention to it in any case. Bumping rather out of question, I watch that. And here was nothing extra, no b&d, no split exposure and only 7 - 11 (oh lol ) seconds total time. Thanks, Derrel.
     
  7. timor

    timor Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    839
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    It is confirmed. My screw up in printing. Gotta watch it.
     
  8. timor

    timor Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    839
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Another day, another fun. Or not. :abnormal:
    Experimenting with ascorbic acid as a film developing component. I used it as an additive to HC110 and was adding 0.5 g of it to 300 ml of my standard working solution of HC110. I am not very happy camper. First run with dev time cut down by a 1/4 produced very dense neg. Obviously over developed and with a lot of base fog and big grain. Didn't do any prints from that. Second run dev time was cut to 60% produced good looking neg in terms of densities, tonal range and much smaller, but not too fine grain. What is curious frames shot at ISO 400, 800 and 1600 look almost the same.
    @400
    IMG.jpg

    @800
    IMG_0002.jpg

    There is only small decrease in neg density, nothing, what should be with full stop or two of difference in exposure.
    Those are scans from 5x7 prints and grain is already visible. Negatives enlarged to something like 13x19 look not so nice:
    IMG_0003.jpg

    It is ISO 400 film, but the lose of sharpness is too great.
    As another test showed my ascorbic acid has zero developing power on it's own, but somehow it cooperates with, in this case, phenidon to get the image in different way than phenidon alone.
    More tests coming, got couple more ideas in the meantime.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. timor

    timor Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    839
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit


    After "winter break" it's time to return to darkroom.
    Another go for Ilford Pan 400. I have 400 feet of that film, enough to try and try and try different ways.
    This time exposure with red filter (effective ISO 50) and development in mixture of HC110 and BM 2000 (X-ray developer). 25% of HC110 was replaced with 10 ml of concentrated BM 2000, the rest of process no change.
    k2.jpg
    Same familiar chimney. Good testing subject, lots of details and angles.
    Developing method I think not bad, detail in full sun and in deepest shadows. Even some tiny clouds in the sky, not so apparent, when I was looking before the shot. 21 mm lens used, not the sharpest glass, but sharp enough basically from corner to corner. I screwed up the "verticality", sorry about it. Bergger warm RC developed in same BM 2000 (1+2 ratio) for 5 min. Picture has an "old times" look :allteeth:.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

hc110 x-ray film