2 paper emulsion questions

[Markok765]

1.Is it safe to use phot-flo on paper?
2. why dont they make a film with a paper emulsion. im not talking about just ortho, because there already is, but to dev to completion, so dev time is not important.
thanks!

 

[Donald Miller]

1. Sure I suppose you could use Photo Flo...but why would you want to?

2. How do you propose to deal with different luminance ranges?

 

[Markok765]

1. Sure I suppose you could use Photo Flo...but why would you want to?

2. How do you propose to deal with different luminance ranges?

1. No drying spots

2A what is luminance ranges
2B all i want is an ilford multigrade iso 100 on a film base with multigrade screw on filtres

 

[Bob F.]

1. No drying spots

Use a squeegee.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

1. What kind of paper are you using and how are you drying it? If you are using fiber based paper and drying on screens or with blotters, Photo-flo would just make a mess. If you are using RC paper and drip drying, you might consider using Sistan (if you can get it), which acts as a preservative as well as a mild wetting agent like Photo-Flo.

2. You couldn't have a panchromatic film that worked with multigrade filters, and ortho films present other issues, which may or may not appeal to you (blank skies, for instance).

The ability of the film to respond to development time gives you a way of controlling contrast. It works with ortho films and panchromatic films. That's a desirable quality.

 

[ann]

markoK

2b what is needed is to learn to use the tools that are available. A tried and true method since the beginning of photography.

or when you get to college become a scientist devoted to discovering more options for film users.

 

[mark]

You are going to need to learn the basics as Ann said. Have patience, take it one step at a time, learn to work with one combination. But most of all keep it light. If it becomes work or you find yourself saying I wish......, stop for a few days, and do something else.

 

[Markok765]

I am nearing my 40th roll of film. ive tried rodinal 1:25, 1:50 and 1:200 stand. ive also used d76, but dont like the look of it. Ive printed over 100 photos. almost all my negs from stand dev print well on grade 2 paper.
I think ive learned the basics.

 

[dbltap]

bud, you have barely begun. the learning curve never ends.

 

[Nige]

#2 is probably somewhat equivalent to sending your film out to get processed, or using C-41 B&W

 

[removed account4]

marko

instead if film, why don't you become one of the many people who uses paper instead of film. you can use you nikon and a bunch of paper.

if you have a darkroom you can make an exposure, and process it as soon as you shoot it. i've done this for years and it is as much ( or more ) fun as using film. at one point i figured out the relative asa's of about 15 different papers. makers will tell you some sort of wacky number, but it doesn't relate to film asa - so you can't use a light meter. i just loaded paper in my 4x5 holders ( after writing on the back the make and model ) and exposed + processed.

you can use all sorts of developers, you can use a yellow filter infront of the lens, you can do a bunch of stuff ...

it is a piece of cake.

have fun
--- john

 

[Curt]

Your right, I think you have learned it all and can safely move on to digital.

 

[Markok765]

Your right, I think you have learned it all and can safely move on to digital.

I have a digi slr for when those times i cant go to a store

 

[mark]

I am nearing my 40th roll of film. ive tried rodinal 1:25, 1:50 and 1:200 stand. ive also used d76, but dont like the look of it. Ive printed over 100 photos. almost all my negs from stand dev print well on grade 2 paper.
I think ive learned the basics.

Hubris of the young. You are barely beginning. Good luck on the journey. Try John's idea with a Pin hole camera if you do not have access to a LF camera. The results can be cool, and the process is fun. Not only that it forces you to think.

 

[unregistered]

#2 is probably somewhat equivalent to sending your film out to get processed, or using C-41 B&W

huh?

 

[Markok765]

huh?

He means C-41 B&w because it would be the same as paper emulsion on film. one developing time, so developing isnt a varible

 

[gnashings]

You know, I think Marko actually has an interesting idea - in terms of having such a product with such qualities. Remember, if young guys like him don't get whacky ideas, nothing ever gets invented.
Having said that, the develop to competion idea is much like the C41 process on some level, but not quite.
The closest you will get to that with traditional B&W is Diafine (from popular off the shelf devs) - not very time or temp sensitive, lasts forever.
Also, it seems like you would really like the idea of large format developed in trays by inspection. Check the LF section - I am totally ignorant in this area, but I have read about such practices, even involving night vision equipment. Sort of what you want, but without having to deal with the many foibles of ortho film (which is definitely a case of a narrow range of applications for just the right look).
If you get a chance pick up last months issue of B&W magazine - it has a great article on paper negs - fascinating stuff. Certainly a lot more capable than I thought they were!

And by the way, you can overdevelop a print. It takes a longish time to do that, and is not the same severity as with film, but it can be done (ask me how I know....).

Peter.

PS 40 rolls? Did you drop a zero somewhere? Maybe two...? 40 is a great start. I'd say its enough to make you comfortable enough with the process to start learning.

PPS. To all of you have told him to go get a digital camera, well done guys. You're all real gems. God knows that the only way to keep film alive is to make sure no one new is allowed in the sandbox and whatever we know is buried with us. Give your heads a shake. If he annoys you that much, either tell him how and why, or for that matter - tell ME: why do you bother responding?

 

[Markok765]

PS 40 rolls? Did you drop a zero somewhere? Maybe two...? 40 is a great start. I'd say its enough to make you comfortable enough with the process to start learning[.QUOTE]
No, at the start mostly tri-x, in rodinal, then tmax 100 and 400 in d76, then tri-x in d76, and now hp5, panf,delta 3200 in stand 2.5h in rodinal 1:200

Im thinking of getting another bottle

 

[Steve Smith]

PPS. To all of you have told him to go get a digital camera, well done guys. You're all real gems. God knows that the only way to keep film alive is to make sure no one new is allowed in the sandbox and whatever we know is buried with us. Give your heads a shake. If he annoys you that much, either tell him how and why, or for that matter - tell ME: why do you bother responding?

Well said. Marko has a million questions about something which interests him and this is to be encouraged. Trial and error is the best way to learn how and why something works or doesn't and these forums are the ideal opportunity to learn from other peoples successes or failures without having to make them all yourself.
It would be great if everyone of Marko's age was so enthusiastic about something instead of spending their whole lives in front of the TV, X-Box, Playstation, etc.


Steve.

 

[Bob F.]

If Marko gets too annoying for someone, put him in your ignore list. He has responded with good humour to a number of insults and attacks in this and other threads (frankly, far more politely than I would have in the same situation) so he gets the benefit of any doubt from me - mind you, he'll probably turn out to be a 46 year old high school teacher...

So, please try to remember his age, and that sarcasm is probably not the most effective way to make your point to a 13 year old...

As for develop to completion, Polaroid Type 55 works pretty much like that - the time before peeling the neg and print apart is not very critical (if at all - I've not used a densitometer to test it). Snag is that you need a 4x5" LF camera to use it (or a pinhole camera that takes a Polaroid holder) - I think the MF version has been discontinued....

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Jim Jones]

Markok, if you want to control contrast in a B&W film with variable contrast filters, it won't work well. The filters would affect the way the film responds to different colors as well as change the contrast. Filters do work well when intelligently used with B&W film to control the film's response to different colors in the subject. Some films are routinely developed to completion, as in graphic arts. This would be no advantage in continuous tone negatives where varying the development is a valuable creative control. The choice of film is also important in contrast control. The late Kodak Tech Pan was a great film for enhancing low contrast subjects.

An aside, one film which may still be available can be exposed at a very wide range of exposure indexes and processed in proprietary developers:
Macophot Cube 400c

 

[jeffneedham]

I have a digi slr for when those times i cant go to a store

and for someone on a budget, that's great. not everyone can afford film, chemicals, etc. all the time. i'll be hounded for saying so, but by using the digital slr in manual modes, you can experiment with different settings and get a rough idea of how something "might" turn out on film.

 

[Markok765]

and for someone on a budget, that's great. not everyone can afford film, chemicals, etc. all the time. i'll be hounded for saying so, but by using the digital slr in manual modes, you can experiment with different settings and get a rough idea of how something "might" turn out on film.

I like apeture priority