Progression to ULF ... yours ?

[nick mulder]

One more thing, the Jobo tubes are not the best for pyro developers. They have ridges that run the length of the tubes on the inside. The ridges create lines on the negatives. There are work arounds, however.

Finally someone who can corroborate on this!

Yup, working with PMK and a Jobo I ended up with concentrations of stain on the base side where the ribs sit on the film. Almost invisible on the neg, but they ruin highlight areas in contact prints exposed with UV ...

I haven't used it yet but apparently Richard Sullivans Rollo Pyro is an answer...

 

[totalamateur]

I'm not all the way down the spiral yet but-

I found Sandy King's description of the carbon print process, and thought WOW, how cool is that. But, being a d***$l guy at the time, I didn't have any negaitves to carbon print. Digital Negs seemed Cheezy, and altogether disingenious. So I started slumming the auciton site for a view camera that would make a negative big enough to carbon print and landed on a eastman No.1 8x10 with no lens, back, GG, or holders, and lots of leaks in the bellows.

Next I picked up an old 170mm lens that didn't quite cover, but was close enough (didn't know anything about lens coverage at the time.) and figured out how expensive 8x10 film was, so I landed on this site looking for instructions to make film a la the silver gelatin emulsion forum.

Made a few batches of jello and decided I was tired of Iso 2, and my home-made back and film holders were getting tiresome, I picked up a back, holders, and film, only too remember that (Doh!) my 170mm doesn't cover at infinity.

So, while I was slumming for an 8x10 lens that I liked, I picked up a calumet 4x5 to play with and really got to shooting. Learned how to print, that buying film was the way to go, confirmed my suspicion that there was something special about contact prints. SO

about the time I picked up the first kodak lens when I still knew squat about LF lenses I picked up a Kodak 24" F6 for cheap, thinking it'd maybe fit the Kodak view (not by a foot). But it does cover about 2 feet, maybe a hair more. SOO...

While still looking for a lens for the 8x10, I've got Bellows in the works for a 20x24, and in a couple of weekends a buddy is coming over with a router table to make plate and film holders and a back.

Why? because I have the lens to do it and I like big contact prints.

Here I am, 3 formats later - and I still haven't made a dang carbon print.

 

[Allen Friday]

I'm not all the way down the spiral yet but-


.

It is not down the spiral, it is up the spiral:

The winding Stair

My Soul. I summon to the winding ancient stair;
Set all your mind upon the steep ascent,
Upon the broken, crumbling battlement,
Upon the breathless starlit air,
'Upon the star that marks the hidden pole;
Fix every wandering thought upon
That quarter where all thought is done:
Who can distinguish darkness from the soul

...

I am content to follow to its source
Every event in action or in thought;
Measure the lot; forgive myself the lot!
When such as I cast out remorse
So great a sweetness flows into the breast
We must laugh and we must sing,
We are blest by everything,
Everything we look upon is blest.

William Butler Yeats

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I'm not all the way down the spiral yet but-

I found Sandy King's description of the carbon print process, and thought WOW, how cool is that. But, being a d***$l guy at the time, I didn't have any negaitves to carbon print. Digital Negs seemed Cheezy, and altogether disingenious. So I started slumming the auciton site for a view camera that would make a negative big enough to carbon print and landed on a eastman No.1 8x10 with no lens, back, GG, or holders, and lots of leaks in the bellows.

Next I picked up an old 170mm lens that didn't quite cover, but was close enough (didn't know anything about lens coverage at the time.) and figured out how expensive 8x10 film was, so I landed on this site looking for instructions to make film a la the silver gelatin emulsion forum.

Made a few batches of jello and decided I was tired of Iso 2, and my home-made back and film holders were getting tiresome, I picked up a back, holders, and film, only too remember that (Doh!) my 170mm doesn't cover at infinity.

So, while I was slumming for an 8x10 lens that I liked, I picked up a calumet 4x5 to play with and really got to shooting. Learned how to print, that buying film was the way to go, confirmed my suspicion that there was something special about contact prints. SO

about the time I picked up the first kodak lens when I still knew squat about LF lenses I picked up a Kodak 24" F6 for cheap, thinking it'd maybe fit the Kodak view (not by a foot). But it does cover about 2 feet, maybe a hair more. SOO...

While still looking for a lens for the 8x10, I've got Bellows in the works for a 20x24, and in a couple of weekends a buddy is coming over with a router table to make plate and film holders and a back.

Why? because I have the lens to do it and I like big contact prints.

Here I am, 3 formats later - and I still haven't made a dang carbon print.

Carbon printing is what I do all the time now. Start with 4x5 or like I did 8x10 to get your feet wet with the mechanics. Take a workshop if you can and have at it. Great process and it is cheap! Best prints I've ever made. When you go larger it get's interesting. 11x14 and 8x20 carbons are as big as I go for the moment.

Jim

 

[nick mulder]

Hello all,

Assuming you use the Autotype papers what are you guys doing about the discontinuation ? I'm keen to get into copper photogravure which as I understand it uses G25 carbon paper.

The same one (?):

http://www.macdermidautotype.com/AADocume.nsf/0/2759AC9F75D5DAA580256E680050C3C4/$File/G25%20Pigment%20Paper.pdf

 

[sanking]

Hello all,

Assuming you use the Autotype papers what are you guys doing about the discontinuation ? I'm keen to get into copper photogravure which as I understand it uses G25 carbon paper.

The same one (?):

http://www.macdermidautotype.com/AADocume.nsf/0/2759AC9F75D5DAA580256E680050C3C4/$File/G25%20Pigment%20Paper.pdf

Carbon printers did not use the Autotype tissue as the blood red color does not make an attractive image. Most of the top carbon printers in the world make their own tissue because it gives them complete control over the process, including image color, amount of surface relief, and contrast for specific negatives. For beginners commercial tissue is recommended and good quality carbon tissue is available from Bostick & Sullivan.

Since the Autotype tissue was discontinued B&S has come out with a tissue that appears to replace it for photogravure work, with some changes in working procedures due to the fact that the Autotype tissue was on paper and the B&S tissue is on a synthetic material.

Sandy King

 

[nick mulder]

I've seen the B&S forums on the new paper - at the moment it seems the product is still being tested...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Hats off though

What are the best resources for learning tissue making ? especially with respect to photogravure/etching ... (and in isolation ?)

 

[roodpe]

The Jobo 3063 works well for developing ULF negatives. I use it for 20x24, 16x20 or (2) 12x20s. The 2850 with the 2830 extension tube works for 16x20 or (1) 12x20.

I have acquired a lot of tubes over the years. I used to bid on the auction site on about every tube that came up. Every once in a while, I would win at a very low price. For some reason, people tend not to bid in mid to late December, which is when I had the most success getting things cheaply. Put in a low bid and forget about it. If you win, great. If not, there will be another one later. Patience, patience, patience.

I picked up a couple of NOS 2850/2830 recently on ebay this way. I use them for my 14x20 negs. I typically spend around $75 (bought one for $69 last week).

 

[jgjbowen]

I picked up a couple of NOS 2850/2830 recently on ebay this way. I use them for my 14x20 negs. I typically spend around $75 (bought one for $69 last week).

I just picked up a couple new 2850 from B&H for $69 each. Sure beats the $184 Calumet wants for the same thing.

 

[eclarke]

New toy

Somebody finally made me a digital pic of my new camera..

 

[Chazzy]

Somebody finally made me a digital pic of my new camera..

It's beautiful. Congratulations.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Somebody finally made me a digital pic of my new camera..

Negative size?

Tom

 

[eclarke]

Negative size?

Tom

11x14! convertible...EC

 

[Zebra]

11x14! convertible...EC

Of course by decree of international law you have to start posting pictures made it with.

its true

nice camera ec, hope you have many years of great light with it.

monty

 

[eclarke]

Of course by decree of international law you have to start posting pictures made it with.

its true

nice camera ec, hope you have many years of great light with it.

monty

HA, Never get me near a scanner!! Waste of time when I could be in the darkroom!!!..EC

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

My next step in the cycle is the arrival of my newest monster, a 12x15 W.Watson. Trying to source some film holders for it is the next task.

 

[nick mulder]

I just got a CPA2 with drums that can do 16x20" - excited ! with the lift and extra capacity its much better than the CPE2 - came with 10L of E6 chems also. Might get one 16x20" holder and make a fixed focus camera for it...

I dont have any expert drums but have noted that 20x24" is a goer with them - aside from a larger diameter what else do they have on offer?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Nick- depends on which Expert drum you get - they will allow you to process anywhere from five to ten sheets of film at a time in a totally even, consistent, scratch-free method. The 3005 will do 5 sheets of 8x10 or even (although it's not designed for it per se) 5 sheets of 5x12. The 3006 will do 6 sheets of 5x7 or 4x5. The 3010 will do 5 5x7 or 10 4x5. The 3063 (no idea where that nomenclature came from as it doesn't match anything else!) will handle up to 1 20x24. You can do multiple smaller sizes in it but it is recommended that you have some kind of anti-slip mat to keep the film in position if you run multiples in one.

 

[nick mulder]

Yep, I'm aware of the capacity - just wondering if there was any thing else to warrant the 'expert' tag ? Better distribution of the chems etc... (?)

I have noted that you require a pump to get the top off which pushes prices up a bit also. I think I'll stick with 4 x 8x10" for now - the cost of a pump and a 3063 on ebay is in excess of my complete CPA2 and its many 2000 series drums Hardly ever happy with what I have!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Nick- depends on which Expert drum you get - they will allow you to process anywhere from five to ten sheets of film at a time in a totally even, consistent, scratch-free method. The 3005 will do 5 sheets of 8x10 or even (although it's not designed for it per se) 5 sheets of 5x12. The 3006 will do 6 sheets of 5x7 or 4x5. The 3010 will do 5 5x7 or 10 4x5. The 3063 (no idea where that nomenclature came from as it doesn't match anything else!) will handle up to 1 20x24. You can do multiple smaller sizes in it but it is recommended that you have some kind of anti-slip mat to keep the film in position if you run multiples in one.

Scott,

Do you have any idea as to how common the 3063 tank is? I think I've seen one for sale second hand in the last few years on this side of the Atlantic.

Tom

 

[Vaughn]

Pump is optional (I have the 3005)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The 3063 shows up here in the US on E-pray infrequently but regularly. Can't say on your side of the pond.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Nick- the "Expert" designation is because of the internal design, you can use lower fluid volumes and get completely even development edge-to-edge.

 

[Three Owls]

It seems that this thread has gotten a bit off topic. I was wondering, how many people have went from 4x5 to ULF without shooting 8x10 or even 5x7?

I was planning to get an 8x10 soon but I would eventually prefer something larger... if I get an 8x10 it will probably become my main camera, rather than my 4x5, and I would want to spend as much on it as I have seen some 11x14s or even 12x20s sell for. I eventually want a 12x20 but that is quite a jump up in size.

Would it be a mistake to jump from 4x5 to ULF? When I started with 4x5 I came from 35mm, this seems a similar jump but maybe I am delusional...

 

[nick mulder]

hmmm,

Mostly just all the extra money you'll be spending on everything - from 35mm to 4x5" you might get away with the same tripod for instance, and if you enlarge on paper then you have trays that can do 4x5" already also - anything above 8x10" and think a complete new well, almost every thing.

Guessing it's obvious but camera weight and size will be a consideration also (think heavy everything)

After maybe a bit of adjusting you should be fine process wise though