jos__miguel_ferreira

Hello,

I hope this is the right forum to ask this question.

Yesterday I used 1 drop of 3% hydrogen peroxide in the Pt/Pd solution (5 and 15

drops, respectively) to try and "snap" highlights a bit. I had tried another

print with a drop of solution B just before, but didn't like the results (it had

grain even with one single drop, and the shadows weren't that great).

I liked the results with 1 drop of 3% hydrogen peroxide, except for the brush

marks that appeared all over the print once the print was in the developer. This

was the first time I saw the effect, and it was also the first time I used

hydrogen peroxide, so I guess they're connected. The brush marks (a bit watery

in aspect) did not disappear in the hot potassium oxalate developer, and neither

in the clearing baths. Is it necessary to dilute the 3% hydrogen peroxide, or

use more of it (2 drops) ?

Did anyone ever had this problem?

Thank you for any useful feedback,

José

Nicola, Jared,

I totally agree with you guys. That's why my first intention was to have a local service-bureau do all the drum-scans from the master prints. The book will come out sooner or later, either self-publishing or through a high-end publisher. The trouble is that these prints are going to be sold during next month, and my initial idea, of drum-scanning them before the buyers take them home, is simply financially impossible. I'm asked around US$80 per scan and per print! Unless a publisher shows up during the show and advances the money for the drum-scans, I have no alternative but to scan the negatives. I even thought about acquiring a Imacon scanner, but that's out of my pocket's league. Unfortunately I don't know when I'm going to be able to print these images again in the traditional darkroom.

Decisions, decisions... Much easier to make with deep pockets!

José

Joe, thanks for your answer. The cost of *any* drum-scan here is far more than what I can afford right now. I'll buy a new Epson F3200 or a new Canon 9950, depending on the reviews of these machines, unless I can find a good Epson 4870 in the used market. For what I understand, scanning my 4x5 negatives with one of these will give me the same if not better results than drum-scanning the print. I have a 72dpi scan of all the prints, so I can compare the results as I re-do the work on the high-res file.

José

Thanks for your answers. Given the prohibitive cost of drum scans here where I live, I think I'll buy a new Epson F3200 or a new Canon 9950, depending on the reviews of these machines, unless I can find a good Epson 4870 in the used market. For what I understand, scanning my 4x5 negatives with one of these will give me the same if not better results than drum-scanning the print. I have a 72dpi scan of all the prints, so I can compare the results as I re-do the work on the high-res file.

Thank you all once again!

José

Hi. Maybe someone can help me here...

I've been reading in several forums about the use of flatbed scanners

for scanning 4x5 negatives. Unfortunately I cannot afford an Imacon!

Did anyone experience scanning 4x5 negatives with a flatbed intended

for digital negatives (maximum size A3)? Or even for Epson 2200

prints?

How do these prints look, say, in comparision to an 11x14 FB silver

print? (these are my standard quality prints)

I would be scanning mainly 4x5 negatives, although some MF as well.

Thanks!

JMF

Maybe someone can help me here...

I printed a large project a year ago on FB paper, on 11x14 paper, and

these final "master" prints were intended to be used for a high-

quality book project. These prints are the only ones available - I

couldn't afford to print several copies.

These prints are going to be sold at an exhibit soon, but I would

like to keep an exact "digital copy" of the image as it is on the

print, so that there is consistency in the look of the silver print

and the image on the (upcoming) book. On the other hand, I might want

to make digital negatives of these images later on to propose more

affordable versions of the image. What would be better, keeping in

mind that image quality is the first priority: having the prints drum-

scanned and "ready" for any sort of output (book, digital negative,

inkjet) or drum-scanning the 4x5 negatives and re-doing the work on

the computer? Also, what's the least expensive of the two,

considering that I would be doing this to 50-70 images through a

service bureau?

Any help would be great.

Thanks,

JMF

What are your artistic or spiritual influences other than your

favorite photographers?

Music? Paintings? Architecture? Philosophy? Nature? Literature?

Do photographers experience "creativity blocks" like in many other

mediums? How do they "snap" out of them?

Just curious...

JMF

�What�s the most difficult thing? The one that seems to be the most simple: to look with one�s eyes what�s right in front of them.� � Goethe

Photography helps do this.

JMF