magic1

As long as the Silver Nitrate and Ferric Oxalate solutions are kept seperate and in light proof containers they will last a long time. The developer (Sodium Citrate) solution is usable (with replentishment) almost forever. The rest of solutions like the clearing baths (I use 5% Citric Acid) and the hypo are cheap and throw away.

 

I tone my Kallitypes with a palladium toner to give them permanancy equal to Pd/Pt prints.

The problem is how do you get a UV light source in your enlarger. They are usually very bright and would fry for neg and a lot of lens coatings block UV.

 

That being said there is an enlarger head you can buy. I think its sold at Michael & Paula's site, but it runs about $2K. Several others have been expermenting with using BLB bulbs. I hope to try it someday, just haven't gotten around to building the head yet for my Beseler 45 and inkjet negs have been working fine for my alt process stuff. Now Azo thats a different story.

Easiest processes are probably cyanotype and van dyke brown. Out of the two I like VDB. I've never done salted prints or POP so I can't comment on them. I would rate the next hardest Kallitype, Platinum/Palladium, Gum Dichromate, and Carbon (hardest by far - but absolutely breathtaking),

 

<p>Print lifetimes: <br>

Cyanotype - long, it may fade but can easily be restored.<br>

VDB - Short unless toned. Can be Pt/Pd toned for permanence<br>

Kallitype - medium, but will fade unless toned.<br>

Platinum/Palladium - very long<br>

Gum Bichromate - very long<br>

Carbon - very, very long (lasts as long as the support will)<br>

Silver Gelatin - long, if processed archivally - longer if toned properly.<br>

InkJet (Gliclee) - short to medium - some manuf. claim 100 years if you use their supplies and dark storage, I think noone really knows.

Not from any laser I've seen (baring lightjets).

 

Go to either www.danburkholder.com or www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com for information on the two main systems for creating enlarged negs digitally. You can also create them using film. It think that's tricker but even you already own a darkroom the cost and learning curve might be less.

Efke 24 is less red sensitive, thus "Ortho". This is why sky go white with it because it still maintains its blue senisitivity. I love Efke 25 but its a tricky film to use. Exposure needs to be precise and the less red sensitivity needs to be compensated for. You can us it to you advantage and it developes wonderfully in stanning developers (which works great doe scanning - kind of bridges the gap between something like XP2 and traditional B&W).

 

Here is an example of an Efke 25 shot that I used a Red 23 filter to drop out most of the blues. Developed in PMK.<div></div>

Its everywhere on ebay, People don't research before they bid. I've watched items used sell for more than they can be bought for new. I've emailed a few with links to buy the new item. They usually answer back that they didn't look first. I chock it up the one thing:

 

People are idiots.

I think you should update you reading skills and curtesy.

 

<p><i>Who shoots 12x20 and then digitizes to control the curve? That would have to be completely daft - why not just shoot 4X5?</i>

 

<p><i>... he must have rocks in his head to be doing that with a 12x20...</i>

 

<p><i>... ask him before trying to be a <b>smartass</b> because you misunderstand his methodology....</i>

 

<p>How about you grow up and quit calling people names.

 

<p>BTW, I'm done with this conversation (and you). People don't need to see us squabble. Life's too short to waste it on negative people.

Its not a matter of information, its a matter of the Dynamic Range that is optimized for the process. I know he does this. I've worked with him. You're the one that called him "Daft". If you don't understand it, admit, move on, or shut up.

A4 sized scanner and photoshop. The printing requirements for carbon printing (to get high relief) are substancially different than for Pt/Pd printing. That's why he does it and he's a world famous printer. I don't see you name bandied around in publications or galleries, so excuse me why I trust his expertise and ignore you.

No a 4x5 doesn't have the same information as the 12x20. And further more you don't know what you are talking about. There are reasons people move to ULF, you can't get the same quality out of 4x5 that you can get out of a larger format.

So he can print the negs in different alt. photo processes (ie. Carbon, Palladium & Kallitype) which take different DR.

 

Steve

Photographers' Formulary in Montana usually has such a beast each year. They don't have next years schedule set, so drop Lynn an email and mention at you are looking for one. The location and the Formulary are incredible. I've taken three workshops there (Hutching's Pyro, Burkholder's Digital Negs, and Sanny King's Carbon Printing). I'm headed back again in late August.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1880559935/unblinkingeye/002-8468269-1536858

 

 

<p>Historic Photographic mProcesses by Richard Farber is one of the best books on alt processes.

Very few people do it through enlarging on film any more. Most folks I've talked to and worked with have now gone the digital route for enlarged negs. I know a photographer that takes 12x20 and still digitizes his negs so he can control the printing curve.

 

 

There are two main systems - Dan Burkholder's (Dan's running a class in it at Photographers' Formulary next month) and Mark Nelson's Precision Digital Negs. I've used both systems and they each have their pluses.

I have one of these. Its gives a much nicer soft focus effect than a filter. Plus its very sharp with the effect ring set to 0 (not as sharp as my 100 Macro, but sharp.)

 

Steve

PanX was (and is) and amazing film. My boss found an exposed roll in a drawer from about 25 years ago and asked me to dev. it. Soupped in in PMK (added about 10% to time) and it came out amazingly. I used to love that film (Efke 25 is my replacement for it). I occasionally see bulk rolls of it on ebay.

 

My impression is to use whatever developer you like and just add about 10% to the dev. time. I wouldn't worry about adding anything like an anti-fog (bez.) it didn't seem to need it.

I own and love both. They have different uses. Only you can decide if the utility of having both outway the cost. I'd kept both (I have).

Tanks (like the combiTank) give me uneven development unless I put the developer in the tank first then set the loaded film holder in before I close the tank (I use PMK). It just takes too long to fill the tank. Besides I don't think they make a 5x7 tank.

 

Doing tray development always left me worried I'd scratch my negs (which I often did - I shoot a lot of Efke 25, and its pretty soft film)

 

I took a Pyro workshop from Gordon Hutchings about a year ago and we worked with a developing tray that you can get from Photographers' Formulary. You still have to work in the dark, but you never have to touch the film. They make them in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 sizes.

They work fine. They just don't last as long. If they are built for hearing aids they last about 4-6 months. If they are the Wein cells (which have smaller holes so they don't dry out as quick) last about 1 year. I used to get 2-4 years out of mercurys.

 

Steve

P.S. I'm basing most of my methodology on recommendations by Grant Haist (the guru of modern photographic processing).

My methodology at this point is to expose the film using an EG&G Sensitometer and shoot a standard USAF target. To then develop each film using standard reel and tank using various developers (I'll also try for using a Jobo). I will then create curves of the film using a densitometer and shoot microphotographs of each so that you can tell both curve and grain structure. I'm trying to get the different film manufacturers to cough up a bit of film for the testing (I need about one 100' roll of 35mm and 100 sheets of 4x5 of each tested film). I already have two rolls of Ilford Pan F I'm starting on. Photographers' Formulary has alread committed to providing chemistry and any other help they can provide. They're even letting me name it "A Photographer's Formulary".

 

The plan is to do more than just curves and standard data. The goal is a primer on photographic chemistry, how to tweak it for the best results, and how to control the process for consistancy.

I'm working on one for Photographers' Formulary. Its still fairly early and I don't have a lot of the testing done yet. I'm still fine-tuning my methodology and calibrating my equipment (densitometer & sensitometer).

 

Its a hugh undertaking.

 

Steve

Just a couple of points from the Minolta side.

 

The Minolta 100mm f/2.8 Macro is an incredible lens. I know Nikon doesn't have a sharper lens than it (in that range). Minolta also makes a fairly unique (but pricy) Macro 3x-1x lens.

 

As to viewfinders, there isn't a viewfinder on the market to compare to the Maxxum 7 and don't get me started on the 7's "Best of Breed" ergonomics.

At groups.yahoo.com there is a group called "MindofMinolta" that I just posted a "scanning basics" lesson this past weekend. Since I also have a Dual Scan IV, I based a lot of it on it. Check it out it might help.

 

As to the original question, I too have see hot spots but only with shots taken with my 500/8. I think the scanning process accentuates what is on the negative. I just use a gradient mask with a "curves adjustment" layer to fix it. If it happens with every shot and every lens, you probably have a defective scanner.

Jim, you'll love the 20mm. Its about my favorite lens. It takes a bit of work to get to know it well (its a hard lens to shoot well, but worth the effort).