chris_autio

I use Marshall oils for both tinting and painting on matte fibre. Matte really is the only surface to choose, since it has a tooth to gather this oil medium. I also use oil sticks. The more expensive Sennelier oil sticks are more buttery and have more pigment and can more easily be mixed with transparent mediums. I have no experience dyeing photos. Arista is an art company that has similar transparent oils as Marshalls. One aspect that is so damn nice about the whole process of painting or tinting is that a color can be removed (or mostly) with Marlene, which comes with the Marshall sets. Arista has this available too through Dick Blick.

Cut a 4x4 in masonite. Drilled a hole with a 51 mm. Couldn’t ask for a better fit. Waited 2 months for this Rodenstock to arrive from Russia!

Looked at KEH, BH, Adorama: cannot find 4x4” board for this Rodenstock Sironar 150. I suppose I could make one!

I am making mural prints as large as 24 x 30, sometimes larger. Until I get a 150 will I begin with 4x5s. My particular enlarger has the negative slightly offset from the center. AJG, if I am understanding you correctly, you say that the soft light head will give more even illumination the further it is above negative. But I have found the opposite: in trying to solve this very problem I put in another circle of plexiglass 1 inch above the first level of plexiglass, and found quite a bit more of a change in exposure from center to border, and less overall light, and thus ability to stop down, of course. I removed the 1” spacer, began with a new plexiglass. And found much better ratio of light from center to border. (This is always a good idea for any enthusiast in that you see dust to clean out.) Rodeo, tube is bright but doesn’t create a ghost image through plexiglass. Very even illumination. There is a heater unit plugged in, presumably to keep each and every exposure of fluorescent even. ( I assume this is standard for a cold light heads).

Alan, I had never even considered that exposure is cancelled out once printed. I have always referred to the Fuji 69 as a great landscape camera because it “assists” this cosign error, allowing smooth lessening of exposure from center to borders. The Pentax 67 less so. I will soon be using a 150 mm!

I have been using a Beseler 45 with both a Schneider Krauz Compon0n 135 and Kodak Ektanon 135 for my 6 by 9 cm negs. No problems. But when I use try to enlarge a 4 x 5" negative I am getting vignetting at the corners. The condenser head cuts off the corners sharply compared to the cold light head. I am rolling up the negative tray as close to the light as possible to the light source. And when measuring the intensity of the cold light head's projection with a light meter, I am reading a full stop between the center and corners of projected light. Will a 150 lens narrow down the source so there is no vignetting?

My wife found a mint Omega enlarger for free. It is solid with smooth minute vertical adjustIng. Too bad it’ll end up as my new copy stand. To be continued...

Very happy with a Super B 13 x 19 print. Grain is evident from edge to edge. This was shot on Ilford Pan with a FujiGW690III fixed lens. The enormous project now is to set up a workflow reshooting years' of photography on film such that they are shot equally well. I would like that press camera in college that was solidly connected to the ceiling. We fed 16 x 20 films through a set of rollers that had a silver recovery unit.

Not giving up yet. It is ambient diffraction of light coming through 1/4" plex that I thought I could inhibit with polarizers. Otherwise, Nikon camera settings 125 with flash, 64 ISO Raw. 6" x 9" negative flat in negative carrier. I suppose that rules out all variables except a poor lens or bad focus. I tried opening it up as a much larger file and got surprisingly good results. 16 bit 30 x 30. Reduced it to a 19.9 MB jpg. Enclosed detail is approximately 3% of whole image.

Made beautiful lightbox with 45 degree angled foam core within. Used a couple different lenses, with MicroNikkor being best. Tried f/32 as well as f/8 to see if indeed there was that sweet spot of the lens. 1/4" thick Plexiglas under negative holder. Tried several 6x9 cm negatives that were sharp (Ilford Pan). Not unhappy and definitely not surprised that the process does not yield a sharp image. If one is happy with an 6" x 9" print from a rephotographed negative... fine, but I am printing these negatives 23 x 39 inches and getting great sharpness. The only other potential improvement may be utilizing a polarizer atop light table and a polarizer on lens in order to "directionalize" the lightwaves.

Thanks Rodeo, flash is a great reason to eliminate vibration and extra reflection. I have heavy duty negative carriers. (my 4x5 carrier pins edges of sheet for taut flatness). I have a cheap copy stand but I'll most likely just use my tripod stem inverted. (I have to mention my Manfrotto was worth the $300 I paid for it 25 years ago. It's been in and out of streams, muck etc. and still works well to this day.) Great idea on the 45 degree method to eliminate glare.

It is via the Digital Lisa, Slimlite Plano light table. It looks like quite a few steps using a magnetic edge to flatten the image. I'll be using a Nikon 850 with a Micro Nikkor 55mm. Looks great on all my medium format, but will need a macro spacer to fill digital to the full frame of 35 mm negatives and positives. May just make my own box, with Plexiglas atop, and use my flash units. Program promotes Lightroom, but I am most familiar with Photoshop. Just gotta jump in. Hoping to make them sharp enough for at least 20x24s

I've been doing this over the years in a haphazzard approach to show clients specific images that I haven't yet printed. Now I see that excellent equipment is now available using a 5600 kelvin light board. And good U-Tube videos to prove it. I am ready to jump in, but would like some heads up from those who have practiced it seriously. Just like making a film, I plan on editing out a lot. Buy new negative sheets. Reorganize. Are you really able to extract the sharpness level to see grain in 100 speed film?

"If I were you I would worry a lot more about consistent metering and developing technique than the accuracy of f/stop settings on almost any large format lens." Minolta ambient metering f/22.0 on each and every shot. Films processed beginning @ 20 minutes, each respective one (f/22 removed at 12 minutes, f/32 @ 11.5 min, f/45 @ 7 minutes.) I placed in cold running water (not stop, as I didn't want to affect other films with my fingers). Once 20 minutes up, dipped all in stop 10 seconds and then fixed. Also, rephotographing negs was set to same exposure and no post manipulation was used in Photoshop other than flipping the curve for all. I am surprised actually by how I began to lose overall density in progression of 400 to 3200. In looking at the grey scale in photos, the ISO 400 just looks too flat. But it may be the best negative once printed. I am an artist but I know that good science requires retesting of which I will do. Ansel Adams said the best photo starts off with the best negative. Unrelatedly, I had my Caltar 135 lens shutter tested at exposures 1/500 thru 1 second. It was "good" among all speeds, except for 1/250 and 1/500 where it was wildly off and needs up to +60% correction!

Because every lens is different regarding precise aperture opening, and every curve different with different developers, I nonetheless endeavored to do a test with my Toyo 45 with Ilford HP-5 in D-76. Tray processed. One sheet over the other very slowly. I will try Ilford DD-X developer next. Umbrella reading is f/22 throughout. Results? f/22 exposure should have been developed at 6.5 minutes, not 8: f/32 exposure is best looking negative at 9.5 minutes(n-1). f/45 exposure shy in the darkest of gray scale blacks but is still very nice (n-2). f/64 exposure falls off the scales. Perhaps HP-5 is best rated at ISO 800, therefore, for my camera. These are not prints. They are rephotographed negatives at same exposure without any photoshop correction aside from flipping the curve. Check attached file for a sense of these negs.

Alan thank you for the concise response as to how prints and their emusion deteriorate over time. I had always thought it was the remaining fix that had been the culprit, not the wood pulp. Just as I wished I began with the best of lenses while young, I overlooked the importance of hypo clearing. Even as recent as a few years ago I was washing my large prints with the sprinkler for a half hour. ! Hanging on the clothesline. But now I use hypo clearing agents for all my printing. Whites remain crisper white. I recently did a job where I re-soaked older (1940) fiber prints. One can simply feel the difference by touch.

Like AJB says, the white lightnings accept barndoors which you can control light to some degree and within which you can place various filters, but the 7 “ grids are really ideal for controlling light (4different grids...get em all). The only disadvantage with these is that they begin to smoke and create a horrible odor if you use them with a bug job.

I've been using my Beseler 45 daily with Ilford 42" paper...for larger prints: 27 by 40 obtained by projection printing. The condenser does not quite cover the 4 x 5 negs but the ZONE VI cold light does (Schneider Kreuznach 135). I suppose if it was recessed then it would cover for the condenser. There is just a smidgen of vignetting with the condenser head, so I use a 150 for that. I certainly get better contrast, and can see the image better with the condenser. The ZONE cold light requires at least a thickness of 1/8" plexiglas to evenly distribute the light. I wish it was brighter because some of my exposures are up to 8 minutes long: condenser exposures are generally about 35 seconds stopped down to a perfect negative @ f/16. (on left, bottom one is colored with oil sticks)

I have a Mamiya 67, Pentax 67 and a Fuji 69. The Mamiya is awkward like the Hassy with all the steps required to take a photo, not really operable in the field. (I hear some people wincing, but I just find it plain awkward looking down to look up, looking at parts of camera rather than what's being photographed) Not as sharp as the Pentax which is a real workhorse for a large job. I used it for a 36 portrait show because I wanted consistency in my printing size and framing. This is a fantastic camera. For sharpness and landscape photography, the Fuji 69 is ideal because of its slight vignetting. It yields images almost as sharp as my Toyo 4x5, as I make mural sized images 27 x 40 in my darkroom. It's a TTL, so focussing can be a struggle in certain light. Almost always use it with a tripod unless the sun is out. Now don't forget the Holga Pinhole! $26 It too requires a tripod for the 2 to 10 second exposures.

Like others who have commented, use only flash. If you have a slip space in your barn doors, use a UV filter over your filters...even if your bulbs say “UV protected”. This filter will essentially eliminate a spike of purple inherent in the spectrum of 5500 lights. Which to our eyes add up to a faint blue. Most of my clients really like polarizers set up on both the lights and the camera. It is the “ Velvia “ of richness, if you remember film. Polarizers on lights eliminate the ambient bouncing of photons. But what good are they unless you have also a polarizer on your lens? Ok, after all this filtration, there will be a little bit of green cast. Not much, but enough to require a either a change in post or to add a smidgen of magenta to your white space. If you can get your lights at more of an acute angle to eliminate speculation highlights and not use polarizers, this is fine. So there are a few specular highlights... so what? It’s a painting ...There should be some highlights! And if there is any relief(depth) to your painting...forget photographing via sidelights..light from above! And yes, use a soft box (baffled to increase directionality) There are a number of variables still at play: mediums of art and their surfaces, whether you’re intending to reprint art or just post digitally. Oils tend to be contrasty and rich than acrylics. Using polarizers(PLs) tend to darken dark oils. PLs on my own work of oil colored fiber photos do not work at all! I avoid PLs altogether and use ambient modeling light. Go figure! Getting back to the specific painting you have mentioned of oil with a gold frame. Cast 90% of your light with PLs for the painting at 45 degree angle, BUT use a unfiltered light behind your camera square onto painting. The reasoning here is that PLs dumb down any reflective surface like the frame(turns gold to brown). The one light behind camera reignites the gold frame without affecting the painting.

Nine times out of 10 the pictures turn out blurry or out of focus when handed over to another. Unless it’s an iPhone, then who cares?