dennis_oconnor6

I found out today that visual inspection of negatives can be deceiving. I thought that the 'Mytol' developed ones had more contrast when I viewed them on my light box. However. When I put each of them in my enlarger (both negatives of the indentical scene) and used my analyser pro to sample them - they gave me identical readings. Oh well it was interesting to find out.

Looks like it was. Thanks for the reply. I was tryng to keep to the published dev times/temps. I have no need to investigate further.

I am finding that I get better negatives (contrast) with 'Mytol' rather than 'Instant Mytol'. I would like to know is it possible to make a stock solution of 'Mytol' in Propylene Glycol?

Yes. Very true.

Sometimes DIY projects are just not worth doing - except for the fun of it.

Yep you have to pay for quality I'm afraid. Yes it does switch off the safe light during exposure. I guess it makes sense to do a separate calibration at each grade. It would be nice if you could do a calibration at say Grade 2 and let the analyser sort all the rest out. I'll have some time to do the sequence during the coming lockdown.

I have been reading how to calibrate this analyser by Andrew Smallman. Although it is a simpler method than the analyser calibration manual uses I have one question I hope someone can answer. Do I have to take a 'light reading' for each grade of paper. What I mean is. If I want to create a test strip for Grade 1, do I have to take a reading with the analyser set to Grade 1. Then for grade 2, do I have to take a reading with the analyser set to Grade 2. and so on? It's a brilliant piece of kit - but complex to calibrate.

I was able to pose this question to a GIMP instructor on the web. His answer was 'unfortunately not'. It would have to be re-coded in order to be understood by GIMP. It could probably be done by someone with good coding skills - I don't have any so that is that. I did think of creating a 'step wedge', but it is the reading of the printed chart that would not be possible. Anyone up for a challenge?

After a long (very) break from photography I am getting back into making digital negatives. I have used Chartthrob in P/Shop but I have moved over to GIMP. Has anyone managed to install it in GIMP? If you have I would really appreciate knowing how you achieved it. Thank you.

Thank you for that Sandy. I have just ordered an aerosol of it to try.

Hello everyone. I have a project in mind but I need some advice. I have a lot of Resin Coated Glossy wet print paper. Is it possible to convert it into a 'Matte' finish by some chemical means? I do not want to use an abrasive paper on it. Thank you.

Thank you for this useful information. A 10% solution sounds promising. Dennis

I have just returned to BW wet darkroom photography I am using Barry Thornton' 2 bath developer. Is is possible to make a saturated solution of the 'Dev B' - sodium metaborate? Thank you

I second that.

<p>Oooohh Dear. Shortly after posting I stumbled upon the answer. It is to do with the scanning area of the printed chart. I have been scanning just the central squares that are used for analyzing. But I think there must be some relationship in the Charthrob programming that positions the analyzing areas, not in the centre of each square being analyzed, BUT at an X and Y coordinate from the outside edges of the chart! When I tested this idea and scanned the 'whole' chart all the analyzing areas were central to each square. All I can hope is that this piece of information proves useful to someone else.</p> <p>Dennis</p>

<p>While I was analyzing a scanned Charthhrob printed greyscale image I noticed that the outlines of the analyzed areas did not correspond to the centres of the printed squares. In some cases it was analyzing the corners of 4 squares! However. When I generated another 'on-screen' Charthrob greyscale image and analyzed that. All the 'areas' were centralized on each square! I noticed that the size of my printed and scanned image was a different size to the original screen image. I re scaled the next print to be the same size as the original. However even this had the same 'analyzing area' problem as the first scanned image I had.<br> Has anyone else noticed this? How did you overcome it?<br> Dennis</p>

<p>Colin. I feel your pain. I am just an amateur photographer. But as a retired engineer I am always searching for solutions to problems. I too would like to make wet monochrome prints in my darkroom from digital images. In fact I have just come out into daylight about 30' ago, disappointed with my latest efforts. I have been converting the images to monochrome in photoshop and applying the 'chartthrob' curve making app. Sadly the 'wet prints' result in way too much contrast. I have tried variations on film speed, developers and developing time, without success. I do use the 'OHP transparency' method with success. But it is a 'one size print' from each 'negative'. I believe in the book 'Way Beyond Monochrome' it is suggested that to achieve what we are after, is to photograph a print onto negative film. I will have a look at the thread mentioned here about photographing computer screens. Sadly I think we are looking for a solution that does not exist with our available (home) resources.<br> Dennis</p>

<p>Thank you for the responses. I want to experiment with creating digital negatives I can 'wet print' at specific grades in my darkroom. I have tried an application that is supposed to give different paper grades, but on screen I cannot detect any differences (unlike a wet print). I guess I will have to just keep experimenting.</p>

<p>Hello. Is it possible to use Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 to simulate 'Multi-grade Paper Grades' as I can do in my darkroom.<br> I have searched the www but cannot see any suitable answer.</p>

<p>My word what a fantastic response to my question. Loads of good advice which I will consider and have a chat to his son. From my conversations with his father, I gather he wants to 'understand' the effects of exposure (apertures/shutter speed) on black and white film so it will have to be a body with manual functions.</p> <p>Thanks for all the responses. I think I will look at the Nikormat range.</p>

<p>Hello all.</p> <p>I have been asked by a friend of mine if I would teach his 14yr old son how photograph with and process black and white films. Apparently he is fed-up with Photoshop or its clones, which is what they use at his school. Obviously he does not want to spend a lot of money on a camera body if his son should decide not to continue B&W film photography as a hobby.</p> <p>My thinking is as follows. The camera body just holds the film and providing the shutter speeds are reasonably accurate something like a Nikon EM might suit him. I think for 'ordinary' photography all singing super duper bodies are of no use to someone of his level. I am prepared to loan him one of my zoom lenses (Nikon fit). I believe the image quality is dependent on the lens rather than the body (please no technical arguments).</p> <p>What suggestions do you have. Am I approaching the project from the correct point of view?</p> <p>Thank you.</p> <p>Dennis</p>

<p>Not a contribution but a developer % concentration question.</p> <p>If 300ml of Rodinal developer at a concentration of 1:100 (a figure I have seen quoted many times) is used for stand development of a 36 exposure of 35mm film. Does that mean if I only shoot and process 18 shots (half the roll). Should I reduce the concentration of the developer to 1:600 (1/2:100) to prevent over development due to the higher concentration at 1:100 on the reduced film area to be developed?</p>

<p>Alan Klein. That photograph A+++.<br> So it would appear from the many responses that there are only three possible advantages of scanning film negatives.<br> 1. You can view the image on screen (or decide if it is worth darkroom printing it).<br> 2. You can print without a darkroom.<br> 3. The ability to 'improve' the subject matter (digital dodging and burning. And the removal of unwanted objects).</p> <p>Thank you for all your responses. I'm off to my darkroom now to have some fun.</p>

<p>"I wish I could give a simple answer! Optical prints are much more desirable than digital ones. Digital prints are easy and cheap. But because of that they have little value.<br /> Optical prints can be mass produced as well, but by their nature cannot be imitated by digital prints.<br /> OTOH if you do not have a darkroom, there's no point worrying about it."</p> <p>Thank you for your response.<br /> I do have a darkroom. Hence the question regarding 'Digital Negatives'. I usually make them from digital images taken with my Nikon D90. I was just wondering if there might be a longer 'grey scale' if the negative were made from a digitised B&W negative.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the prompt responses. I had not considered the longevity of film compared to digital storage. So it looks like (apart from the pleasure of shooting/processing film) for digital negatives - shoot digital. I have a Nikon D90 bye the way.</p>