First decent paper negative

joe monteiro

Member
Registered User
img380A.jpg

Shot in my dedicated testing lab (camera on tripod in the living room shooting through the closed window to the neighbors yard across the street).
8 X 10 Wollensak 1A Raptar 13" f6.8 rear element removed 25.5" about 350mm at f22 15 sec.
Developed in Sprint chemicals which arn't too time or temp. sensitive about 3 min. @ a bit over 20 deg. C.

The same shot with the lens not converted looks to be about two stops over so between the two i should be able to come up with a working ISO for the paper/processing FINALLY.

img380B.jpg

The scan no tweaking.

Contact print...... AH WELL.... the next challenge.

Comments more then welcome.
joe
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
What paper and what grade ?

You need to cut the contrast quite significantly, don't over develop and I'd suggest using your developer more dilute. We don't have Sprint chemistry here in the UK if it's normal use is 1+9 use it at 1+19, half the recommended strength.

Ian
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Perhaps a bit under 20°C next time? Or a bit more water? Or both. Contact onto Grade 0?
I like this experimental approach – rather like Columbus.
With a bit of tweaking, you could rescue a scan, but that's not your intention, I'm guessing.
An interesting start.

Now here's a question. Do we use non-standard techniques to get standard results, or are we looking for something else?
 

JimW

Member
Registered User
Now here's a question. Do we use non-standard techniques to get standard results, or are we looking for something else?
Depends whether we're in a 'standard' situation. If not, then in order to achieve a standard result we have to use non-standard techniques. Paper negatives aren't standard recording media, so non-standard methods needed. What is standard for a paper negative? Reduced tonal range, inherently greater contrast, less transparent base material making it difficult to contact print(not impossible), BUT if one is happy with the result, then one has arrived at the intended destination. May I quote the OP?
First decent paper negative.
Well done, current standard achieved. Higher standards on the way, no doubt. Thanks for posting.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
That seems to answer my question. I ask out of curiosity, not judgement. It looks like progress to me.
 

joe monteiro

Member
Registered User
What paper and what grade ?

You need to cut the contrast quite significantly, don't over develop and I'd suggest using your developer more dilute. We don't have Sprint chemistry here in the UK if it's normal use is 1+9 use it at 1+19, half the recommended strength.

Ian
Ian, i have to keep my feet firmly on solid rock or i'll start chasing my tail and go crazy. The Sprint goes to completion and doesn't seem to allow the variations of others with time or temperature so this is one of my starting points.
Paper is Ilford MG IV though i have a fair amount of Forte speed 16 X 20 graded bought on closeout (cheap) but i don't want to cut it down as from time to time i've printed to that size.
Paper is noted for it's contrastand will try to use filtration to control it.
BTW i appreciate all your input to this forum and look forward to it.
 

joe monteiro

Member
Registered User
Perhaps a bit under 20°C next time? Or a bit more water? Or both. Contact onto Grade 0?
I like this experimental approach – rather like Columbus.
With a bit of tweaking, you could rescue a scan, but that's not your intention, I'm guessing.
An interesting start.

Now here's a question. Do we use non-standard techniques to get standard results, or are we looking for something else?
A scanner is sort of an evil thing that i have to use to come here,
Paper is/was a low cost entry point but it has it's own charm.
Now to your question, i like things that Isabel Curdes does and there is an image that comes back to me from time to time that i'll try to attach here. The image is © Judy Dater, the younger person is Twinka (but of course you knew that) but can you tell who the other is? Oh yes i also admire Penn's work.
j
 

Attachments

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Ian, i have to keep my feet firmly on solid rock or i'll start chasing my tail and go crazy. The Sprint goes to completion and doesn't seem to allow the variations of others with time or temperature so this is one of my starting points.
Paper is Ilford MG IV though i have a fair amount of Forte speed 16 X 20 graded bought on closeout (cheap) but i don't want to cut it down as from time to time i've printed to that size.
Paper is noted for it's contrastand will try to use filtration to control it.
BTW i appreciate all your input to this forum and look forward to it.
The concept of development to completion is a myth, development should be the time to achieve D-max with Bromide papers. Over development will affect the tonality and contrast

Sprint themselves actually say: QUICK SILVER Print Developer 30 sec - 3 min (See Exposure & Development)
and although they say 1+9 dilution for paper negatives it would be better to try 1+19, you don't want a high D Max that's almost impossible to contact print through.

Sprint do list 1+19 as an alternative dilution and temperature variations do affect development times although Sprint don't mention it, however their print developers are fairly typical PQ developers nothing out of the ordinary.

Ian
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
I've been looking at the actual picture. Unusual, I know.
What kind of flying hut, with a perfectly good staircase, needs two extra ladders to get in through the floor? Is it an escape tunnel? Two tunnels? And what's The Thing that needs to be tied down so firmly? You have interesting neighbours.
 

joe monteiro

Member
Registered User
I've been looking at the actual picture. Unusual, I know.
What kind of flying hut, with a perfectly good staircase, needs two extra ladders to get in through the floor? Is it an escape tunnel? Two tunnels? And what's The Thing that needs to be tied down so firmly? You have interesting neighbours.
"You have interesting neighbors" Now now don't give me that i've heard enough of your southwest oooo arrrr country.
It's a semi tree house for their kids Josie and Cal (Josephine and Caldor some traditional names are coming back).
Note the beam under the ridge i presume that's to hang a kid from if one gets too far out of line.
The tied down thing is a sail boat asleep for the winter there's also a somewhat larger one out of the shot to the right.
Two boats = two ladders.

i'd like to take a moment to thank everyone for not coming down on me about the rhododendrons not being in focus but it would probably require stopping down to f512 or so and then lighting and it is only a test shot.

in humor
joe
 
Last edited:

joe monteiro

Member
Registered User
Joe could you please enlighten me as to why you would consider the scanner to be an evil thing.
Scanners .... and printers break, will become unsupported and unless they fairly top end can't duplicate what i can do in the darkroom but in order to transmit a print i'm stuck with either a stamp and envelope or scanner.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Hmmmm...
I have a friend who uses a Leica enlarger. The special lamps for it are no longer manufactured so when his present small stock burns out, his beautiful machine will have gone the way of all scanners. This sort of thing happens to most devices. (Although I have just bought a 100-year old camera.)
No reason why you should love scanners for the work you do yourself, but without them, we wouldn't have met you and that would be a loss.

My private view, which I can't insist on, is that given equal levels of skill (which is the important factor) the only thing that a digital print can't do is create curly edges. I may be missing something: I may be a cloth-eyed half-wit. That would explain a lot.
This is not a claim that a digitally-produced print can be an exact duplicate of a wet print. That would be equivalent to claiming that a darkroom print can be made to duplicate a digital one. I've never heard this said by any darkroom worker. I've never heard anyone claim that bronze can duplicate marble, either.

For what it's worth, I like those out-of-focus rhododendrons. Thank you for de-mystifying the scene. Your neighbours still sound interesting. Keep up the good work.
 

JimW

Member
Registered User
I may be a cloth-eyed half-wit.
You ain't the only one, there's more of us about than you think......! One colleague tried to wind me up by saying could I do in my darkroom what he could do in PS? all I could say was where do you think the guys who wrote PS got the ideas from? As my colleague walked away, all I could think was ' Phew, got away with that one.' They are most definitely two different ways of working, both with their strengths and weaknesses.
I was with my brother yesterday. I photographed his wedding. He has an album full of prints from a processor. They are as good as I remember, no fading. (9 years old, now.) The inkjet print from the same event has turned from black and white, through a gentle sepia, to a nearly featureless brown. It won't last another 9 years.
I like playing, so darkroom for me. I like paper negs, and I like this one.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Well, to be fair, inkjet printing has come a long way in nine years.
You're right about Photoshop and "real" photography. Why else would anyone give a sharpening function the name Unsharp Mask? If you've done it, it seems obvious, but if you haven't, it's gibberish. Without a darkroom background, Dodge and Burn might be Local Lightening and Local Darkening. And so on.
And to be fair again, you can do things in Photoshop that you can't do in a darkroom, but would you want to?
 

JimW

Member
Registered User
And to be fair again, you can do things in Photoshop that you can't do in a darkroom, but would you want to?
Depends. I am an amateur, I do it for the love of it, and so I only have to satisfy my criteria. So no, I wouldn't want to. Were I a pro tog, well the rules change.
 
Top