eugene_anikin

<p>Yes, I have made my own photographic paper, and it's not very difficult. It does take some practice to make clean coating though. Another, more practical, reference for you: http://www.thelightfarm.com/<br>

On your questions:</p>

<p>> I realize that exposing directly to paper requires much longer exposures, but could it be done?</p>

<p>Yes, it can be done. You just need to make faster emulsion for that. #2 is faster emulsion of the two.<br>

<br /> > Recipe #1 is applied to canvas so I assume that paper could be used just as easily, but the resultant image is pretty rough and I'm not sure if that's due to the canvas or the emulsion soup.</p>

<p>It's due to the canvas. This slow emulsion is very fine grained. However, it is also very slow, as in 15-30 seconds contact prints under the table light. If you use that in camera, the exposure time will be in hours. Now that you mention, I have got some left over chloride emulsion in the fridge. I think I'll try it in my 4x5 just for the laughs :)</p>

<p>> Recipe #2 yields a much cleaner image, but the instructions call for coating <em>glass</em> and I don't know if it'd work on paper just as easily.</p>

<p>Sure, it will work. But see Allen's post - you'll get a negative. Of course, you could try to reverse process it, but I promise you, *that* will be challenging since these emulsion formulas don't have a hardener and are very soft and fragile. You are better off making a negative on a transparent substrate (try Grafix Dura-Lar Wet Media film) and then contact printing it to a photo paper. Good luck, you are into a lot of fun! Once you get your first home-made photo paper print, you'll be hooked. It's that beautiful!</p>

 

<p>Bonnie, please check this out: <a href="http://www.tiffen.com/star_filters.htm">http://www.tiffen.com/star_filters.htm</a><br>

The simplest way to make what you want to happen is to get a star filter and to light your object with so-called "point source" lights. </p>

<p>Yes, $15 per roll is not cheap, but really, it's not too bad considering we are talking about fresh modern film cut to a custom size. Check out B&H: TMY 620 rolls are $14. </p>

 

<p>Hi Chris,<br>

Sorry, I don't have an exact answer to your question. Every time I go to Taiwan I bring film with me and bring it back to develop. In my experience it was rather difficult to buy film in Taiwan, especially if you want something specific. However, keep in mind that I usually don't go to Taipei. I'm sure you will be able to find some film in one of the camera shops on Bo-Ai street near the main train station. By the way, check this out:<br>

http://japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/taiwan-camera-hunter/<br>

Good luck!<br>

Eugene.</p>

<p>The upcoming 2013 Ilford ultra large format order might include film rolls with 122 width if minimum order is met. Please consider joining:<br>

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/116052-2013-ulf-manufacture-ilford-photo-harman-technology-limited.html</p>

<p>Nick, I think you are panicking too early. The negative looks fine to me. Try scanning/printing it. I inverted your second image in an editor and I clearly see green grass and blue sky. Properly scanning it or printing optically should give you a decent image.<br>

Eugene.</p>

<p>I wonder if it's the issue with Mac vs Windows versions of VueScan. I'm using mac, and just like John Shiver, the results with Vuescan are very unpredictable. Jeppe, are you running it on Mac or Windows?</p>

 

<p>I gave up on vuescan for color neg film. In my experience it was totally useless. And with Ektar film specifically, it just gets maddening because of high contrast of the film. Even after locking exposure, base color, etc the vuescan still tries to guess exposure and balance for each frame and usually it royally screws it up. I could only find two ways to make it work with color neg film:<br>

1. run in raw mode and do inversion in an external program<br>

2. shoot a gray card on one frame of the film roll and use that to calibrate vuescan and lock all exposures/color balance. This works most of the time, but not always.<br>

Anyway, for B/W work I love vuescan, but for color, I switched back to EPSONscan. It's not perfect, but results are at least useful. And if I see a frame that deserves extra work, I can rescan it raw and invert/color-balance manually.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Matt. Generator is an overkill. You only need electricity for a safelight and enlarger. For a safelight get a battery-operated flashlight or a lantern and put a red Roscoe filter on it. For enlarger, I would get a marine battery and one of those led light sources that periodically show up on bay of e. LED requires very little power, so a battery will last you a very long time.<br>

I bet that the LED light can be easily converted to 12V power source, in which case even inverter becomes optional.</p>

<p>I do the same as Bob. If you use 2L kits, I would suggest following. Boil a gallon of distilled water. When it cools down to the mixing temperature, mix all of your RA-4 chemistry at once and separate into containers just big enough for each use. Say 4 0.5L bottles for dev and 4 0.5L bottles of blix. Fill the containers to the brink and store them in a dark cool place. I have a fridge for my chemicals, but RA-4 I simply keep in the garage where it is always cool. When chemistry is mixed and stored that way it lasts very long time. I've seen 6 or more months without noticeable degradation. Another advantage is that you always have the chemistry on the ready, no need to mix it right before the use. Great for short printing sessions.<br>

By the way, the reason for boiling distilled water is to remove any dissolved oxygen from it. This way you minimize oxidation of the chemistry from the beginning of storage.<br>

If you buy more concentrate than 2L, just top the concentrate bottles off with butane or nitrogen and keep them in the fridge.<br>

I would also add my vote for Kodak's RA/RT chemistry. Great stuff!!! Lasts for ages and always reliable results even at room temperature.</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.anikin.com//photos/read.2010-07-13-LincolnCity/Scan-100713-0021.b.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="416" /><br>

Same here. I do enlarged color prints all the time. You don't know what you are missing if you just scan your film. For example, I have a 16x20 enlargement of a butterfly made from 35mm Ektar film. It was taken handheld with a 40mm lens. Well, you can actually see the fine structure of butterfly's antennae on this print. On scans, this detail simply is not visible. I'm sure a drum scan can get close to that, but why pay for a drum scan when you can cheaply print on the enlarger.<br /> My typical prints are either postcard-size, 8x10 or 16x20". I've done processing in drums, NOVA and roller transport processor. When I work with drums, I put chemicals in pitchers and process test-strips right in the pitchers. When I think the color balance and exposure is right, I process the actual prints in the drum. To me, this is probably the quickest way to get an occasional print with least amount of cleanup.<br /> I find it much easier to color balance with the enlarger than on the scanner. Color paper is very forgiving, so after a while you will be able to get your filtration in just a couple of tries. Good luck! It's not as hard as those who never tried say it is.</p>

<p>Hi Ed. Kodak's J39 recommends 2m at 81 degrees. The last time I did it, I processed for 2:30 at 80. The chemistry goes to completion, so a bit too long is better than a bit too short, especially with blix. I also processed at room temperature (68 degrees for 3min). The results were just as good. This was done with Fuji Type II and Kodak Supra III papers.<br>

Also, I use chemistry one shot for consistency. I tried reusing it one time, but ended up just wasting paper because filtration and contrast changed too much. Not worth it IMO.</p>

<p>If it's Beseler drum then I will stick with my suggestion of processing at lower temperature. Had you used Jobo drum in a heated bath, then the answer would be different. Let us know how your next attempt goes.</p>

<p>Knowing what kind of drum/processor it is might help identify the problem.<br>

I would recommend to try running at lower temperature. I generally run my beseler drums close to room temperature for 2.5-3 min with prewet. Slower development at least theoretically should produce more even results. Higher temperatures are good for roller transport where paper gets dipped into solution at even rate. With drums, the developer gets spilled over some portion of the paper and starts working there for a second or two until it gets distributed across all the paper. This initial area might develop somewhat differently than the rest of the print if there is a temperature gradient.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael,<br>

I'm glad I could help. The Tetenal kit uses blix which can result in retained silver and the grain you see. It is better to use separate bleach and fix chemistry which will produce much better results.<br>

The scanner difficulties are coming from some color cross-over on the film that resulted from incorrect processing temperature as others indicated, but the biggest difficulty comes from the nature of Ektar film. Ektar is extremely saturated and very contrasty film. The scanning software has very difficult time figuring out the color balance of this film and tends to create very strong color casts.<br>

I have love-hate relationship with this film. I love it for the results and colors it can produce, but scanning it can be a pain in the neck.<br>

Eugene.</p>

<p>P.S. I think I added a bit too much green. The monitor I'm using is not calibrated, so forgive me. However, I hope you are getting the idea.</p>

<p>The color of your prints look reasonable to me. The color cast is likely coming from your scanning software/technique, but it's correctable. The graininess is likely retained silver from bad blix. Not all is lost through. Get separate C-41 bleach and fix. Rerun the film through bleach,fix and stabilizer and your film should be better.</p><div></div>

<p>I'd like to second what others have pointed out. The weak dilutions of developers do not keep. The developing agent have oxidized and that's what caused failure with your third roll. Stronger dilutions keep somewhat better if you take care to make sure that they have no contact with oxygen and store them at the lower temperature.<br>

For best and consistent results always fresh mix developer and final rinse with distilled water right before processing the film and never reuse them. Keep careful track of fixer usage and don't over-use it. I stopped reusing even fixer after noticing that if working solution of fixer has been kept for more than a few weeks it can create occasional holes in the emulsion of some films. For some reason, it always happened to the best frames on my rolls. So now I always fresh mix and don't reuse even the fixer. The only chemical I ever reuse is the bleach when processing color films.<br>

You are taking some beautiful photos, and in my opinion it's just not worth the risk of ruining them by skimping on the chemicals.</p>

 

<p>1+3 is the typo in the instructions. See this thread:<br>

http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00QIey</p>

 

<p>Mauro,<br>

Thanks for posting this comparison. I'm trying to understand what you mean by EI 1600. My guess is that's how you exposed it. I assume you pushed the films during processing. If so, by how much?<br>

What developer did you use for tmax and for how long? Same question for Portra.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Eugene.</p>

 

<p>Glad you figured it out. On my enlarger there is a lever which disables filters. See if you have something similar on yours. I actually suspected something like that and that's why I suggested developing fully exposed and unexposed test strips. If the first one comes out black and the second white, it indicates that at least there is nothing terribly wrong with your chemistry ;-)<br>

On your questions: pH is an indicator of how acid or alkaline the solution is. You adjust it by adding stronger acid or base. The developer activity increases with higher pH and/or higher temperature. That's why Bill's formula calls for adding KOH for room temperature. One thing you have to remember though, the formula is not an official RA-4 formula, and while it may work well with one type of paper, it may produce terrible results with another. As long as you are willing to accept that, it's ok to use. If it's your first foray into color printing, I strongly suggest buying some real RA-4 chemistry. Getting color filtration right will give you enough of a headache at first, and you really don't want to complicate things when you are just learning.<br>

Good luck, and let us know how it went! I'm thinking about trying this formula myself, so I'm very interested in hearing about your experience.</p>

<p>A few steps to troubleshoot:<br>

To see if it's your developer or the blix, run fully exposed strip through blix without developing it. Does it clear?<br>

Develop and blix fully exposed and unexposed strips. Do you see any difference?<br>

Experiment with adjusting pH. Even though Bill said KOH is optional, if your pH is off, your development can be problematic as well.</p>

<p>The mixed C-41 can last very long time. Bleach will last pretty much forever. The fix is second best. The developer needs care: make sure it's in air-tight container in a cool place. I just finished my stash of C-41 developer that I mixed back in April. I kept it in small juice bottles filled to brink, and stored in a fridge. So far, the longest I kept mixed developer was 6 months before running out of it. Perfect results, the chemicals look like new. I did mix it with distilled water which was boiled and cooled. The final rinse must be kept in concentrate and mixed right before use. Otherwise biological scum will grow in it.</p>

<p>I used to do what Juergen and Barry do. But more often than not, I would scratch the film when I pull it out of solution without the reel. These days I dunk the film into the final rinse right on the reel. You just have to make sure to rinse and scrub the reel with a toothbrush in hot water immediately after taking the film off. No problems after dozens of rolls. Notice, I mentioned final rinse, and not stabilizer. The stabilizer contains formaldehyde which does tend to create sticky residue, so the answer might be different for it.<br>

Yes, you can use stabilizer for B/W films. You are more likely to get drying spots than with plain photo-flo because of the extra ingredients in the stabilizer, but other than that, it should work.</p>

<p>Gabriel,<br>

I had precisely the same experience with Costco. I believe their "no auto-correction" checkbox is simply ignored. Probably some bug in their flow. For most images it's no big deal, but for some, like night shots, it completely kills the colors.<br>

Anyway, when I need to print an image that I know they are going to screw up, my solution is to take the disk with the image, and go to the counter and ask the nice lady that works there to please print this photo on the older machine (in my Costco they have two) and turn autocorrection off right there on the machine. This always produces the colors I want and no highlight clipping.<br>

By the way, they will reprint the image for free if the machine screws the colors up, but you need to have a disk with the image with you when you go to pick up the photos because they can't always dig it out from the online submission system.<br>

Eugene.</p>