keith_baker1

Tim,

You say that color "rules this century". I'd agree that print for print, color prints outnumber B&W prints by a wide margin. The word "rule" as used by most teenagers implies a sort of "better than" or superior stance. I do not agree with the "color rules" part at least in a semantic sence. B&W conveys a very different visual experience than color - I have yet to learn which one is "better".

Hi Joe,

I too have the same issue. Warmer water makes matters much worse since more gas dissolves in the warmer water. I wash in cooler water to 'debulk' the paper and then increase the temp to help with diffusion (which occurs more readily as the temp rises). When the bubbles appear I then lift the prints out of the wash for just a few seconds and the bubbles all pop. I repeat as often as I can stand it. I worry alot that that bubbles inhibit the washing process. I like the idea of introducing 'big air' but don't quite know how to do it yet; I'll have to figure something out however.

Keith

Hi Folks,

I'm keen on trying pyro. I went and bought Gordon Hutchings book and

some PMK solutions. In my reading I picked up that pyro and the

tank/hanger combo may not give even development and staining. I have

developed lots of 4x5 in tanks with XTOL without any problems. I

would like to know if even staining is possible with pyro and

hangers/tanks or whether I should adopt another technique. Please

advise. Thanks in advance, Keith

Hi Wayne,

I have used TMX in 4x5 and TRI-X (pro) in 4x5 with Diafine (I used hangers and tanks). I have been so displeased with the result that for the moment I have stopped using Diafine. My problem stems from unevenness of the development. I follow the directions properly and get swirls in the skies and so on. I think that I underagitate the negs and think that I should be a bit more aggresive than the directions indicate. It does bring the highlights down and controls contrast quite well.

Keith Baker

Greetings Oh Helpful Ones:

I sometimes find myself with prints that need more washing or toning

yet it's way late at night. So far, I have allowed the prints to

soak overnight and into the next day in a water bath. I'm using

fiber based papers and was wondering if I may be causing any problems

or loosing any whiteners/brighteners with these marathon soaks. The

prints are 'behaving' otherwise.

 

With Thanks in Advance,

Keith

Greetings all you helpful folks. I have recently acquired a Schneider Symmar 5.6/300 lens (born in 1973. It's a so-called convertible lens and thus by removing the rear element it converts to a 12/500. Great, two lens for the price of one! Since the f-stop is still read off the shutter I'm confused by the f12 thing when I remove the rear element. If I let my imagination go, I figure that the f12 thing is due to the bellows extension and that all I really need to do when using the 12/500 version is to read the actual f-stop off the shutter and then apply a normal bellows extension correction factor (500^2/300^2 = 2.8). Unfortunately, the conversion from 5.6 to 12 is more than the 2.8 that I calculate (it's more like 4.1) Please explain how to adjust exposure when using the 12/500 lens. Many Thanks in advance.

Howard,

I have used diafine with tmax100 4x5. My results are so poor that I

have given up for now. My problem is that I get uneven development

and thus I get streaks; especially lousy in the sky! Perhaps I

should be more vigourous as regards the agitation of the film but the

directions say to go real gentle.

Greetings,

There I was driving down the road when I saw the shot....of course I didn't have my 4x5 or 35mm cameras with me because I wasn't going out to photograph. I live in Boston and I don't keep my stuff in the car because I worry that the summer heat and the winter cold will damage either the cameras/light meters etc or the film. I shoot both color and B&W film. I would like some feedback of the sorts of abuse (thermal in particular) camera equpment (lens/bellows/meters/etc) and film can take. Thanks

Well, That was the BEST group of answers to a very simple question.

Thanks to all and to all a Happy New Year. KB

Hello,

I have been reading about the hybrid of digital and traditional printing. The idea, as I understand it, is that the negative is drum scanned, all cropping, dodging, burning, etc is carried out in the digital domain. The digital file is then sent ***somewhere*** and they make you a large negative the size of the desired print. In turn, you contact print the large negative in you darkroom and handle the rest as has been done for years.

My question: where would you send the digital file for this sort of thing? What is a service bureau?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Kevin,

In response to the f-stop issue - you are right that 2 different lens

such as a 50/2.8 and 135/5.6 may not (likely will not) share the same

optimal f-stop re:sharpness. But, I choose f/11 for my experiment so

that the 135mm/5.6 lens would be favored (2 stops down from open) yet

it still under performed re:sharpness as compared to the 50 mm/2.8

lens (4 stops down from open)!

Keith

Greetings,

I have a Bessler 45mx enlarger outfitted with an el-nikkor 135mm f5.6 enlarging lens (age unknown, even nikon couldn't tell me the age when I gave them the serial number). Anyhow, I did an experiment last night which showed that when the same negative is printed to the same size on paper, the image was sharper when made with my el-nikkor 50mm f2.8 elarging lens (which I normally use for 35mm) than with the 135mm lens. I could easily see the grain with the grain focuser when using the 50mm lens but it was not as sharp with the 135mm lens. I also found the shadows to be darker with the 135mm lens when all else (fstop, filter, time,size) was the same.

 

<p>

 

I want advice on what type of lens would yield better results than the 135mm el-nikkor. I am considering buying a new enlarging lens for my 4x5 work (All black and white stuff) and want to buy an OUTSTANDING lens

 

<p>

 

Thanks, Keith

A wet negative hanging to dry will stick ANY dust in the air onto the

film. I now use a 'prepared' bathroom to hang the film for drying.

I turn the shower head on hot and let the bathrrom steam up bigtime -

this removes the dust in the room. I then keep the door shut and

hang the film. I do not open the door until the film is dry - since

it is soooo humid it takes overnight and I usually dab off the

hanging drops that form on the lowest corner. I now only get dust on

my negs if it was there at the time of exposure. I have also

recently moved to using Kodak single-sheet ready loads with TMX 4x5

so that the dust problem is essentially gone. I also use hangers for

film developing cause I'm concerned about one sheet corner scratching

another.

As usual, the group has been very generous and quite helpful --

Thanks to all of you who contributed to the answer. Keith

Greetings,

I have an ancient calumet 4x5 view camera. I recently bought a recessed lens board for my 90mm 6.8 rodenstock lens. Problem is.....I can't get the cable release to also fit into the recess. I have a clever litte angled (bent) cable release adaptor but it too won't fit. I have tried a number of different releases and none will fit. Does anyone have a solution?

Thanks

I use Zona and have been very pleased thus far ( 1.5 years ). They

are a pro lab in Cambridge and they charge for their services at a

reasonable rate. Phone# 617 864 8747.

Greetings,

 

<p>

 

I am developing TMX 4x5 in tanks with Diafine (2 solution compensating developer). I keep getting streaks of uneven development on my negs (the sky is too painful to look at!). I do 4 "tilts" each minute and develop for 5 mins each in solutions A and B. Anyone with some advice on how to handle the negs to get rid of the streaks? I'm trying to follow the directions that come with the Diafine where they say GENTLY agitate the film for 5 seconds each minute. Thanks in advance. Keith

I too use the calumet GG cover. Its a cheapy plastic thing but it

works fine. I use it all the time since I have a new Boss Screen.

Keith

Greetings,

I would like to rule out enlarger lens flare as a darkroom problem. Does anyone know of a way to test for how much if any flare I am getting with my current setup.

Thanks

Keith

Hi Nick,

My fiber based prints have become a lot flatter now that I squeggee

(spelling?) them dry (both sides) and dry them face down, on a drying

screen. The first time I brought a print in for dry mounting, the guy

insulted my curled up prints, now they lay pretty darn flat and I

don't have to do anything except what I said above. As regards to

keeping your prints from curling, I suggest printing on paper which

is a good bit larger than the image size, so that the curly edges can

be trimmed off. If you care about longevity, then the best thing I

can recommend is ARTCARE board for dry mounting and matting.

Good Luck- Keith

Greetings from Boston,

I have been happy with 4x5 TMX in full strenght XTOL @ 20C. I would like to extend my abilities to handle high contrast situations by using a compensating developer. I will be testing XTOL at 1:3 for its behavior with TMX. I have read all that I can get ahold of but it seems like an uncommon thing to do. Since this is a use of my precious time I am writing to ask for any tips you may have to help me with my experiments of using dilute XTOL as a compensating developer with TMX. Thanks in advance. Keith

Thanks for the responses thus far. In order to settle the issue I

went back to the darkroom. The Ilford filters are the problem. When

I print with the filter the rings appear; When I print without the

filters the rings are gone.

The mysterious part is that I am NOT using a glass neg holder!

Greetings, I have a curiuos problem. My prints have visible concentric rings as part of the image. I am printing 4x5 B&W negs with an Aristo cold light, Bessler MX enlarger, Nikon 135 mm lens, Ilford filters (beneath the lens) and VC papers. The problem is more obvious in areas of sky where it's easy to see. The rings are not centered on the paper, they do not coorespond to the windings of the cold light tube, the diffuser material looks uniform, the negs are clean, the filters are apparently uniform and the lens appears clean. My nice prints are being haunted!!! I would like to find out what causes this and what to do about it. I would rather not reinvent the wheel on this one.

Thanks in advance to those who contribute helpful info.

Keith

Hi, It Keith again... Thanks for the input so far - I have considered

all of it. John asked for clarification: I do want a deep DMax, but

I don't want the blue-black or green-black or brown-blacks etc. I

want only black - no hint/tint/color/hue and so on. I don't know if

that is 'neutral' or 'cold'. I will try the different dilutions of

ethol. I presently use 'neutral', I will conpare to both a more

dilute (warm) and a more concentrated developer (cold). I saw a

print when I was out in Calif by an old guy named 'Adams' - The thing

had jet black shadows and they were CLEAN - not a hint of any color.

As alway, thanks for your thoughful input. Keith