Xícara de Café

Playing around with the Sabattier effect while printing. These have been tweaked in software to improve the contrast (which I posted about here: Whiter whites with Sabattier effect) First and last image taken with a Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4, Ilford FP4+ 125. The second image, the same camera and film but with a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8. In the 2nd and 3rd image i used a +5 Kodak Polymax filter with Ilford Multigrade IV paper. This helped the contrast but I still needed to adjust further in software:

Hello, I've started doing enlargements recently and yesterday, tried my hand at the Sabattier effect (exposing the paper to white light during development to create a partial negative image on the paper due to masking by the image forming on the paper). I think I more or less got the hang of it, with 2 second exposures being the most effective, however I was left with the problem of the whites in the photo being left rather grey. Using shorter exposures (1 sec) helped but the effect was too subtle. I also tried using contrast filters (Kodak Polymax). This helped a lot, but still, I'd like the whites to be whiter. How can this be done? I suspect bleaching might be the way to go, although I might lose the blackness of the blacks without further toning. I tried using household bleach, but ended up losing the entire image. If anyone has a suggested technique, please let me know. I'll paste below 2 pairs of images. The first being the raw scan of the print and the second, a digitally tweaked version of how I would like the print to look. All the best! Raw scan of print with no contrast filter and 2 second exposure to room light during development: Adjusted in software: Raw scan of print with Polymax filter #5 and 2 second exposure to room light during development: Adjusted:

My last experience driving one of these was in the outskirts of a regional city, in pouring rain, on a highway full of trucks, trying to find my way back to the hotel. I prefer them as objects of beauty! They sound great too of course!

Contax IIA, Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f/2 collapsible, Kodak Tri-X 400, Kodak D76 1+1: With the kind and generous help of a Flickr friend Yuri, we fixed a light leak in my Kiev 4 over Skype. Kiev 4, Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f/2 collapsible, Kodak ProImage 100: Some new prints from old negatives. Nikon FE, Nikkor-P Auto 105mm f/2.5, Ilford HP5+ 400, Kodak D76 1+1, Adox Adotol NE 1+7: Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4, Ilford FP4+ 125, Kodak D76 1+1, Adox Adotol NE 1+7: And back to the Kiev. Happy Christmas everyone!

Plastic from a very thin white plastic shopping bag however shows that 1/2 a stop less exposure is required on negative 2. This looks more in line with the test prints that I did. To give the details of these two negatives - to get a good print for both, I set and noted the following settings: Negative 1: f/8 and 2.75 seconds (white channel null reading at 58) Negative 2 f/8 and 2.25 seconds (white channel null reading at 56) Squeezing in another beginner's question if i may, if my reference negative has an exposure time of 10 seconds and I note that my unknown/test negative requires 1 stop less exposure, does that equate to a reduction by a half of the exposure time at the same aperture (ie. 5 seconds)?

Thanks. Have you ever tried setting exposures this way? I tried experimenting with a single piece of tissue on a second known negative and it resulted in an estimate of more exposure than that used for the first. I had already printed from the second and had noted that it in fact required required less exposure to get a good print - so I guess the density of the filter must be critical.

Hello, I have a Beseler PM1A Color Analyzer which came with a B&W enlarger that i purchased. On pages 13-14 of the manual (http://looscanons.com/php/download.php?f=beseler/pm1A.pdf) it describes how to calculate the exposure for an unknown negative by way of an aperture adjustment and from known settings. This requires the use of the "light integrator"/diffuser (originally sold with the analyser) in the light path in the last step of the estimate. Unfortunately mine is missing. Is there anything that I can use as a substitute? Any advice is most welcome! Thank you!

I used to take slides to document projects that I was working on. I was using an 80s or early 90s Pentax that I'd inherited from my father for this (can't remember the model, a "P" something...) but needed something that could take exposures longer than 1 second and had an entry for a cable release. Enter the Nikon FE which i bought used sometime in the 90s. Gave up using it when I moved countries and could no longer find a place to process film. It sat unused and with a roll of exposed film inside while I waited for the moment when I would buy a "good digital camera". That moment never arrived but I did eventually find a photo lab (the only one left in the city). This FE is responsible for getting me excited about film photography (again). The photo following it too, which is a photo of my wife that had been sitting in the camera for over 10 years.

No new photos but last weekend I started printing with a very nice Leitz 1c enlarger and Schneider Componon-S 50mm f/2.8 lens. I made the choice with excellent help from various people on photo.net - thanks again! Will upload two scanned 3.5x5" prints and one 5x7" print. The paper was Ilford Multigrade IV although I didn't use any filters to tweak the contrast. The negative of the the woman sitting on the bench has quite a bit more contrast that what showed up in the print. I've got some filters arriving next week, so I'll be able to experiment some more then. All film is Ilford HP4+ 125 and developed in Kodak D76 1+1. Nikon F2 Photomic, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8: Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4: Contax IIA, Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f/2 (collapsible):

Scanned 5x7" print on Ilford Multigrade IV satin paper. Contax IIA, Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f/2 (collapsible), Ilford FP4+ 125, Kodak D76 1+1, Adox Adotol NE 1+7. Leitz Focomat 1a with Schneider Componon-S 50mm f/2.8.

It was inexpensive - less than US$40 and with cheap postage. Importing things in Brazil is very expensive and potentially risky, so I was lucky to find a local solution. Also, restoring lenses is not such an expensive venture here. I had a 1930s Carl Zeiss Jena lens restored in São Paulo and I'm very happy with the result. Yes, the Componon-S is excellent. And yes, those codes are a lot of fun! All the best!

Don't worry folks, I decided to go ahead and purchase it before it disappeared - so I'll soon know for myself whether or not the tube works on the Componon. The more I read about the Focotar, it sounds well worth having it serviced. All the best!

This is the Focotar/DOORX on sale:

Hello, I recently purchased a Leitz Focomat 1c. It came with a Schneider Componon-S 50mm f/2.8 lens. Both are in excellent condition however the auto-focus mechanism on the enlarger does not work as the Componon is simply too short. I've read that extension tubes can be used to remedy this and that the Leitz DOORX extension is the correct choice. Has anyone here used this combination and can they confirm that the auto-focus works correctly? I've also found a Focotar 5cm f/4.5 going cheaply but with very dirty optics and potentially with scratches or damage due to fungus. It comes however with the DOORX extension tube and may be worth buying even for the tube alone. Is the DOORX extension on the Focotar meant for normal use? ie. at magnifications between 2.5 and 10x ? If so, the focotar+DOORX looks much longer than will be the case with the Componon-DOORX combination. This makes me doubt if it will work. Can someone please clarify this for me? Thanks and all the best!

Yes and yes. And yes, I realise i wasn't using it properly! Thanks, I think I have it sorted out now. Yes, the f/16 print was made with a longer time interval. What I was wanting to know is, when the time interval/exposure is adjusted correctly for each aperture, should there be any qualitative difference between an enlargement made at f/8 and f/16? For example, will there be a difference in contrast? Some of the blogs I read recommend using f/16 for enlargements and others recommend f/8. I can see that f/16 gives more room for fine tuning when setting the exposure time, however I read somewhere else that contrast may be reduced at small apertures, which is why I chose f/8 - and also because, to my knowledge, lenses tend to perform best in terms of sharpness, at least when taking photos, at f/5.6 or f/8. It depends on the particular lens, of course. Can that 15-25 watt bulb be "white"? Perhaps my 40 watt red bulb has an equivalent brightness. I checked the filter again and it's definitely red and not amber. Do I take it that red is an overkill with B&W? In any case, now that I've worked out how to use the easel properly, I'll have less problems.

here is the safe light:

Thanks for the information Glen. Good idea about the test, AJG, i'll do this, and Sandy, yes, i will try to get the real thing at some point. I had some success printing this afternoon. I used a 1+7 dilution of Adox Adotol NE, a 2% stop solution that i mixed from 4% acid vinegar and standard Kodak fixer. The paper size is 3.5 x 5 inch so after doing some tests strips I settled on just 2 seconds at f/8 (using the ~50watt LED). I developed for a minute agitating the tray every 10 seconds. Stopped for 10 seconds, agitating more or less constantly and fixed for 2 minutes agitating every 10 seconds. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong with this. I settled on f/8 (i also tried f/16 which didn't seem much different) because I read somewhere that smaller apertures can give less contrast. Is that correct? The paper i have is Ilford Multigrade IV. I don't yet have any filters to play around with contrast, but that's something I'll try in the near future. Here is a shot of our washing line and the first photo, taken with my phone (the focus is good in the print). But, a question: I've had real trouble framing because I cant see very well with the safe light I'm using. The light looks purpose built and has a heavy red filter at the front of a closed cylinder. For the element I've used a 40watt red incandescent lamp - i wonder though if i can use a standard 40watt bulb however? - it might make it easier to see. All the best!

So in your opinions, LEDs are OK?

Thanks. Actually I looked pretty hard and went to a square with probably 40 lighting shops. :) lots of options at 3000k and at 6000k but few at 4000, which I believe is neutral. Yes, I have the manual. It just won't adjust as described because the lens is too short. I saw elsewhere someone recommending an extension with the schneider

Hello forum, I'll shortly be making my first attempts at darkroom printing. I have a Leitz Focomat 1a with a Schneider Componon-S 50mm f/2.8. Both are in great condition. The lens seems too compact for the auto focus to work on the Focomat and I believe I'll need an extension tube to fix that. Will look into that in the future, for the moment though I'm still able to focus with smaller paper sizes (on larger magnifications I have to adjust the lens focus mechanism dangerously close to the end of its thread). The enlarger requires a 75W opal lamp. This city has power of 220V, however I've only been able to find enlargement lamps in the national market for 110V (the older big cities use 110V in Brazil). I could get a transformer, but since the lamps are rather expensive (and perhaps aren't even real enlarger lamps), I'd like to try some alternatives. I won't import from abroad because of the cost and having recently not received a couple of international items posted to me. I have read that opal finished LEDs with a colour temperature of 4000K produce good results. I have not been able to find one with the equivalence of 75W incandescent. I have however purchased the following lamps, none of which have any writing on the lamp itself. a) an opal LED with colour temp of 4000K and wattage of 7W (== 50W incandescent). b) a compact fluorescent with colour temp of 4100K and wattage of 14W (== 70W incandescent). c) an Osram "silica" incandescent lamp of 40W ("opal" finished but not actually so-called) Both lamp a and b switch on and off very responsively. Lamp b is of course the brightest and the easiest to focus with. All 3 produce a similar looking light. Can anyone please give an opinion on these options? If I use the LED of 50W will I just need to adjust my exposure times by a factor of 1.5? (ie. 75/50 = 1.5) I'm inclined to use the 50W LED as it has a more "classic" form factor. The florescent is more elongated and extends fairly close to the condenser - and i think may produce a less even spread of light (although to my eye, it looks the projection looks nice and even). Thanks - all the best!

Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor 200mm f/4 type K, Kodak ProImage 100: Agfa Billy Compur with a focus problem - took it in to be fixed today. Ilford FP4+ 125, Kodak D76:

Doing some after-purchase searching on the Fotomat 1c, I found a pair of videos on the actual enlarger. These weren't available on the platform i purchased from as they don't allow for external links. Looking at these, i think I've done well:

This was taken with an Agfa Billy Compur 6x9 folding camera. I'm a bit disappointed with the lack of detail but i like the quality of the image. I'm also happy with this photo because I had to run to catch up with the canoeist and managed to get the timing right on the paddle! The camera was on a tripod and I used a cable shutter release. Film was Ilford FP4+ 125 and was developed with Kodak D76.

Well, I did some googling and I'm fairly certain that's what it is. The seller also said that the lens and condenser are in a "perfect" state. So, I made the purchase! Thanks everyone for your help and patience with my questions. I appreciate it!

Thanks rodeo joe and AJG. One thing that's apparently is missing is the "focus filter". I don't as yet know exactly what this is. The seller says however that there is a red Tiffren filter to take its place. I think that must mean that it is missing swinging red filter in front of the lens, i don't know. Could someone please clarify what the focus filter is? Would the tiffen be screwed on to the lens?