A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[StoneNYC]

BTW is 1000 sheets common? Seems like a lot of paper to just "try out" and is this a good choice to start with in terms of paper? I assume I'll be contact printing this but maybe enlarging smaller negatives too? Thanks. Maybe I'll use the paper to print contact and compare to a scan print and then light-jet it... (Maybe enlarge an area as if it were 20x24 so I can see if it's the same as what I see on the computer?)

Also, I know I can use Rodinal for paper right? Would there be a better dev for this? And the ilford rapid fixer and ilfostop can both be used correct?

I know this is SORT OF a deviation from the thread, however if you all say I need to compare to a print for real, I need to find a way to do that...

Anyone have like 25 sheets they would send me for $5 (well $10 with shipping)? Instead of buying 1,000 sheets for $180....

 

[StoneNYC]

Dinesh, please stop posting, you've been on my ignore list for a while now, and whenever I hit the "spoiler button" it's nothing but garbage, non-useful insulting garbage... Go away... You're nothing but a troll....

 

[eddie]

Stone- I think you should find someone who will print one of your negatives (which you have an ink-squirt version) on a few different papers, so you get an idea of what choices are available in wet printing.

 

[canuhead]

no to Rodinal as print developer.

you can always rent a darkroom to cut down paper to 4x5 (google says quite a few rental labs in NYC). doing it at home is dead simple as well…dark space/red or amber bulb and a trimmer. ymmv

I would also suggest spending a few days with some books to get your head around the processes and terminology etc. instead of just experimenting. While I'm not a follower of St. Ansel, his books would be a great start.

 

[markbarendt]

This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.

The reason so many of us have suggested that you print is that the negative is just one part of the journey, it is not the destination, never has been.

You just reached a new milestone.

 

[StoneNYC]

You don't really understand what you are saying here... What do you REALLY mean "shot and developed to look a certain way"? We're not talking about direct positives, like slide film. A negative is an intermediate step. If you're talking about your experience thus far then "shot and developed to look a certain way" is simply referring to how YOUR scans look... on your scanner, with your workflow, on your monitor and so on. If you changed that equipment or process then your "look a certain way" would also change.

By calibrating you negative / wet print system you can you can achieve predictable results, but even then you have so many controls in the printing stage that aren't available when you make an exposure with the camera that you are quite likely to want to make adjustments in an expressive way.

I do understand what you mean, but what I'm saying is, given a certain film ... HP5+ for an example (or any film it doesn't matter) it's a 400 speed film (in theory, pretend it's a Velvia50 which I expose at 50 and with my way of metering come out with almost perfect exposures almost every time) so if I treat HP5+ the same way, and expose it at EI400 the exposure should be spot on, so when printing that negative, onto a given paper, I should always have the same exposure process every time assuming I've properly exposed the negative...

If you're constantly having to adjust your times for printing, then you aren't very good at properly exposing your negatives in the first place.... Even if using the zone system properly (as I understand it ... Limitedly) when you push or pull to correct for the -n1 or +n2 or whatever (I know you don't call it pushing but essentially that's what it is let's not be stupid and argue about this, you're changing the standard development time to compensate for a different exposure than standard) if you've done it properly and exacting, your printing time should be the same... If it's not, your fault is in not exposing as exactly as you could be...

 

[eddie]

One size does not fit all... Different papers have different sensitivities, contrast, tone... A "perfectly" exposed negative may not be perfect for a particular paper. Adjustments will need to be made.

 

[miha]

SNIP - and a lot of fun too.

+1+1+1

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

...I agree with others that once you start printing, and really get a handle on it, this will start making more sense...

It really is "a lot of fun!"

Good luck!

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone- I think you should find someone who will print one of your negatives (which you have an ink-squirt version) on a few different papers, so you get an idea of what choices are available in wet printing.

I don't ink jet print ever... Only chemical print via light jet...

 

[Truzi]

This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.

When you scan, I would bet you at least adjust levels. If so, you are going through an hoop. When you have that "perfect," perhaps you want a little more detail in an area and use the burn tool. Another hoop.

Neg-Pos printing is an "imperfect" process that, when used together, work together to be more "perfect." You have to develop with printing (or scanning) in mind. A transparency is also "imperfect," but what is considered correct is basically considered such within the confines of the medium (which is very good).

I'm not yet capable of this, but exposing a negative, then printing to paper, without any of those hoops can produce a "correct" image that most would be quite happy with; much like the automation of a C-41 mini lab. I think the point is, it can always be done better, which is where the "hoops" come in, and where I imagine most people on this BBS are coming from. Lighting and exposure can be as perfect as possible, but one may want a little more detail in a shadow, or smoother highlights, etc.

Don't worry about this at first. Just do it and enjoy it. First come up with some prints that other people think are "nice" even if they are not up to your standards; just aim for "good enough." Make sure, above all, that you enjoy yourself - this way you will not be put off by it. Only then should you worry about getting better. Progress in increments.

It has been a very long time since I've been in a darkroom. When I finally print, I will not go through all of these hoops (except to teach my best friend what I know - and what I know is little). I intend to print several rolls of B&W I've taken over the past few years - every frame, even the bad ones, and the ones that I messed up developing or creased while putting the film on the reel. It will be practice.
I will just print to get a nice pictures and be happy to have remembered that much. I will then take the better images and start going through the hoops until I get where I used to be (which was not very far), and I will be happy with that. Then I will learn and get better.

So basically, just do it. Don't worry about it. Enjoy the process first, get a feel for it; worry about becoming good at it later. Expect to make mistakes... actually, make mistakes on purpose.

Do not expect to play Paganini when you first pick up the violin, even if you can play it well on an harmonica.

 

[StoneNYC]

no to Rodinal as print developer.

you can always rent a darkroom to cut down paper to 4x5 (google says quite a few rental labs in NYC). doing it at home is dead simple as well…dark space/red or amber bulb and a trimmer. ymmv

I would also suggest spending a few days with some books to get your head around the processes and terminology etc. instead of just experimenting. While I'm not a follower of St. Ansel, his books would be a great start.

I live in CT actually, not as much here, I looked on ilfords site and not many darkrooms near me

 

[StoneNYC]

One size does not fit all... Different papers have different sensitivities, contrast, tone... A "perfectly" exposed negative may not be perfect for a particular paper. Adjustments will need to be made.

Well they need a paper in "grade perfect"

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Well they need a paper in "grade perfect"

They have one, it's called "variable contrast".

 

[eddie]

Printing is where the magic begins...

 

[StoneNYC]

When you scan, I would bet you at least adjust levels. If so, you are going through an hoop. When you have that "perfect," perhaps you want a little more detail in an area and use the burn tool. Another hoop.

Neg-Pos printing is an "imperfect" process that, when used together, work together to be more "perfect." You have to develop with printing (or scanning) in mind. A transparency is also "imperfect," but what is considered correct is basically considered such within the confines of the medium (which is very good).

I'm not yet capable of this, but exposing a negative, then printing to paper, without any of those hoops can produce a "correct" image that most would be quite happy with; much like the automation of a C-41 mini lab. I think the point is, it can always be done better, which is where the "hoops" come in, and where I imagine most people on this BBS are coming from. Lighting and exposure can be as perfect as possible, but one may want a little more detail in a shadow, or smoother highlights, etc.

Don't worry about this at first. Just do it and enjoy it. First come up with some prints that other people think are "nice" even if they are not up to your standards; just aim for "good enough." Make sure, above all, that you enjoy yourself - this way you will not be put off by it. Only then should you worry about getting better. Progress in increments.

It has been a very long time since I've been in a darkroom. When I finally print, I will not go through all of these hoops (except to teach my best friend what I know - and what I know is little). I intend to print several rolls of B&W I've taken over the past few years - every frame, even the bad ones, and the ones that I messed up developing or creased while putting the film on the reel. It will be practice.
I will just print to get a nice pictures and be happy to have remembered that much. I will then take the better images and start going through the hoops until I get where I used to be (which was not very far), and I will be happy with that. Then I will learn and get better.

So basically, just do it. Don't worry about it. Enjoy the process first, get a feel for it; worry about becoming good at it later. Expect to make mistakes... actually, make mistakes on purpose.

Do not expect to play Paganini when you first pick up the violin, even if you can play it well on an harmonica.

To be honest, with the exception of expired films that have a lot of base fog (I mean like 10-30 year old film) most of what you see is essentially a straight scan, with a few exceptions of course. But with most exposures, the only "digital" I do is add about 11-14 to the "clarity" slider in Lightroom 4 and maybe some dust removal and then export the image. That's it. The dust part will be my biggest nemesis in the darkroom I think...

 

[StoneNYC]

You do realize you're leading me to a place where I will only ask more annoying questions right?... Are you prepared for that?

 

[CatLABS]

Wish they made 4x5 paper already cut, cutting in a dark tent is hard and I've tried cutting down larger film sheets to smaller and in the dark bag I just don't have the technique for it, if I had a darkroom that would be another story I suppose, but I don't really enjoy it and would rather it be done for me.

Actually, they do. And, if you cant find the 4X5 paper, you can buy the readily available 4X6 paper. A small price to pay for pre cut paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Post #376 about sums up the whole problem with this guy.

Congratulations you broke the code. It is now time to stop feeding the troll.

 

[StoneNYC]

You do realize you're leading me to a place where I will only ask more annoying questions right?... Are you prepared for that?


Not right now. From a technical perspective in analog photography, I think you are a beginner, and you should begin with some simple books or the publications I've linked to. These resources will be the best way forward, not forums. You are not yet in the position to sort good and bad information, and bad information is worse than no information.

Fair enough.

 

[Chris Lange]

To be honest, with the exception of expired films that have a lot of base fog (I mean like 10-30 year old film) most of what you see is essentially a straight scan, with a few exceptions of course. But with most exposures, the only "digital" I do is add about 11-14 to the "clarity" slider in Lightroom 4 and maybe some dust removal and then export the image. That's it. The dust part will be my biggest nemesis in the darkroom I think...

Please do not say that you subscribe to the whole "if it isn't 'straight out of camera' it lacks integrity and skill on the part of the photographer" crowd.

This ideology came along at some point when a bunch of idiots decided that photoshop was an invention of the devil, and coincidentally, they happened to be the offspring of the same bunch of idiots that believe that Henri Cartier-Bresson never cropped a single photograph.

The whole point of a negative is to give you a wide record of a scene's characteristics, not an small slice of it, like a slide would. Why do it this way instead of like chromes? Have you ever even read the myriad complaints that people have with printing chrome, re: contrast masking and other bugbears?

I'm not ashamed to say that I use extensive Lightroom and Photoshop adjustments, probably more than most people shooting digitally in RAW, on my negative scans. But you can bet your ass I can also make that same print in the darkroom.

 

[Dinesh]

Dinesh, please stop posting, you've been on my ignore list for a while now, and whenever I hit the "spoiler button" it's nothing but garbage, non-useful insulting garbage... Go away... You're nothing but a troll....

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

no to Rodinal as print developer.

you can always rent a darkroom to cut down paper to 4x5 (google says quite a few rental labs in NYC). doing it at home is dead simple as well…dark space/red or amber bulb and a trimmer. ymmv

I would also suggest spending a few days with some books to get your head around the processes and terminology etc. instead of just experimenting. While I'm not a follower of St. Ansel, his books would be a great start.

Actually, Rodinal is a fine print developer in concentrations of about 1+10 or so.
In the old days the developer was used as such in a pinch.

 

[Truzi]

To be honest, with the exception of expired films that have a lot of base fog (I mean like 10-30 year old film) most of what you see is essentially a straight scan, with a few exceptions of course. But with most exposures, the only "digital" I do is add about 11-14 to the "clarity" slider in Lightroom 4 and maybe some dust removal and then export the image. That's it. The dust part will be my biggest nemesis in the darkroom I think...

Those are still hoops, technically speaking. If everything was perfect, you'd not have to do that.

You do realize you're leading me to a place where I will only ask more annoying questions right?... Are you prepared for that?

While I agree that some books would be a better starting point for you right now, I think _most_ of us would rather you ask questions about something you are actually doing. Make a print, show us, and ask for suggestions - just don't expect suggestions from me, because I'd probably be at the same level in the printing department (haven't printed in ages, and was never very good). The difference is, I'm just going to do it, read things, experiment... then I will ask for help.

We _want_ you to print. The questions will seem less annoying once you are going through the process because we will know you are asking from experience. The questions will be much more salient. Plus, people will feel they are actually _helping_ you instead of just answering esoteric questions. Even if you do not take a piece of advice, it feels better knowing the advice was evaluated in a real-world setting.

 

[StoneNYC]

Actually, Rodinal is a fine print developer in concentrations of about 1+10 or so.
In the old days the developer was used as such in a pinch.

Hmm, this add says 1:40-1:80 hah!