m._hilo

Eduardo, I have this screw and you can have it at the cost of postage from The Netherlands. Send me a private message . . . Michael

making sure the image you will be printing is so good and so special to you, that you will not stop until you get it right.

The first question is how many prints and what is their size? Then it is important to know their surface, matte or glossy? I helped a friend who had a stack of about 10 curled prints which were printed on 24x30cm paper Agfa Brovira double weight with a matte surface. We first separated the prints and put each one on a table between 2 acid free carton of a slightly larger size. Then we used a book as a weight for each print between the two cartons. Most difficult was to make sure the corners did not fold and all I can say I pushed down the corners of the smaller side, then held that from the outside with one hand, while the other hand pushed down the corners of the opposite smaller side of the sheet. It worked but took awhile. In the end there were 10 prints between carton on the table with each a book (photo books, ha) on top. A week later the friend came back, the curling of the prints had diminished a lot, at least by half. I then used the least important print and a dry mounting press to press this print flat. The temperature of the press was at about half of what I normally do while flattening my own fiber prints. Which is 90 degrees Celsius, so I set the temperature at 45 degrees Celsius. Pressing this print took a little longer than usual, because of the lower than usual temperature of the press and I also decreased the tension of the press. The result was very good, so we did the remaining prints in the same way. After pressing I put these prints between acid free sheets for about two days, like I usually do. They came out fine and flat, and looked as if nothing had happened to them Washing or wetting such prints I would stay away from, because you risk changing the surface, when glossy in particular. And, even after so many years, if the prints were spotted you probably change that. The spotting ink may disappear completely or partly, or you risk changing the color of the black ink used for the spotting, which can look awful.

Smith was an excellent printer. His prints from that time in Japan had a lot of contrast. Perhaps he developed his films harder than usual and he probably used the harder gradations of the paper. He may have made his paper developer more contrasty by raising the dilution. These were typical ways in those days to reach more contrast. But it could happen that, for instance, a white face remained too light. You could/can save that print by taking it out of the developer, breathe on it while rubbing it with your fingers or thumb. It works. Photographer Dave Heath printed in the same manner. Very strong prints, full of contrast and still with enough information. Not becoming harsh. If you ever have a chance to see the prints from his book A Dialogue with Solitude: they’re amazing. Also in the book this is evident, both the first edition from 1965 and in the reprint from 2000. A professional printer I knew had a seperate small tray with stopbath, just to clean his hands after doing this. Stopbath, then water . . .

Yes, their traditional or analog fora are plenty. Lots of knowledge. Folks seem to react mostly when they know more than usual about a subject. In my case that is about Leitz enlargers which I have used since the late seventies and I still do. Let's say you don't find me in threads about Leica cameras. I use Olympus since way back then, but I still find there's not much to say about them. Or perhaps cameras interest me less. I suffer from insomnia and when the newspapers are too depressing the forums are a welcome distraction.

Correct! Traditional Darkroom covers it better. Even implying there's more than that: namely the Digital Darkroom Analog to me sounds non-committal

I am afraid I have been unclear from the start, sorry. English is not my native language. I was looking for an active and practical archive based on the posts and experiences of folks familiar with the analog darkroom. I was not looking for a place to send students with questions, but I accept my use of language may have suggested that. At the Photography Academy in Europe where I teach, there is no requirement whatsoever instructing students to ask questions at photography forums. I have also taught at two universities in New York and at a university in Perth. Again I never heard about this. If Photonet agrees it is important to build archives from the posts, my suggestion is to use the words Analog Darkroom. After all, it works for Digital Darkroom.

You understood wrong and it case it interests you: they ask me plenty of questions and they get plenty of answers from me. But that's just me, there are many roads that lead to Rome. Today's students have an open world in front of them and they know very well how to access it. Also, they can certainly deal with a diversity of opinions.

Yes, that makes sense, with perhaps adding the word darkroom: 'Film and Processing / Printing and darkroom Equipment'

I see your point about the endless number of sub-forums, but I respectfully have a different opinion. When you look at the number of messages Film and Processing has, I feel the analog darkroom will have the same or more. Or is the Film and Processing forum also an obscure forum? My students do read the posts in the forums because they're eager to find out more about analog photography.

I was wondering if people with questions about analog printing, enlargers and other darkroom equipment ask questions here in Photonet. Not that much for myself. I teach photography and stimulate students to find solutions themselfes. Forums are one way to do that.

I have been away from Photonet for some years, perhaps I am searching in the wrong place and this is a dumb question. Is there a forum on the analog darkroom? About enlargers and about printing? Or has Photonet given up?

I have worked professionally with the OM-1 since 1978 and with the OM-4Ti from when it replaced the OM-4. During the first years I used the 50/1.8 and a 35/2, but in the mid-eighties I settled on the 40/2 lenses. I am a one lens guy and found the 40mm perfect, in particular because of the b/w prints I get from it. My prints go up to 50x60cm (20x24in.) I use the OM-4Ti with 125asa and the OM-1 with 400asa and both with the 40mm. One of the best things of the OM-4Ti is the Grip 1, which changes holding the camera in a beautiful way. About 15 years ago I held that Grip 1 to my OM-1 and realized it would fit. I asked the opinion of an old friend who was a Leitz repairman, his response was: "may I?". In about 10 minutes he drilled the hole in the right place, gave it a screw thread, made it so it wouldn't leak light, glewed the leather back in place, etc. It looks and feels factory made. The only thing about the 40mm I was not happy with is the very small front ring of the lens, which operates the aperture. I use 49-52 metal step-up rings made by Pentax which make using the aperture ring totally easy. Some different brand step-up rings don't work. Attached a picture that explains the Grip 1 on the OM-1 and the step-up ring on the 40mm

Yes, I was looking for the traditional darkroom and printing forum - which in my case still is the heart of photography If it is still around, it is not very good I can't find it If it is gone, oh well, luckily there are other forums to go to

If yes, so will I