Request for recommendation for a B&W print

[pharmboycu]

Hi all--

Please accept my apology in advance if I've posted in the wrong forum or if soliciting recommendations is taboo.

A couple of years ago, I had my 7.5 minutes of photography fame when National Geographic chose my photo as the "photo of the day" on their website. (I only give myself half credit for the "15 minutes of fame" because that was the day the N.G. website was hacked and my photo was only visible for about half the day.)

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/dogtags-chandelier/

I'm toying with the idea to have a few really nice, optical prints made of this negative for some special people. My concern is that the negative has a bit of a purplish hue, presumably due to my inept developing. When I posted the image to the N.G. site I did an autocorrect on the colors to fix this.

May I ask for a recommendation of a lab that could optically print this 35 mm B&W negative at a decent size (8X10 or larger for framing purposes) and can also handle any corrections necessary with the negative? If there are any labs or lab operators who post here, that would be great. After all, if I need such a service, best to direct the business to a member of the forum, right?

Also, being that this is the first time I've even considered doing this, may I ask if 3-5 prints at such a size will be a wallet buster? Not looking for exact prices (unless they are already published somewhere I've missed), but just a general idea.

Thank you all, yet again, in advance!

John

 

[mauro35]

If the purple color is even in the whole negative, then it should not affect optical printing at all. What film is it? Some of them have residual dye after processing (like Tri-X) and there is a lot of discussion going on how to get rid of it, but it does not cause problems at all.

 

[pharmboycu]

If the purple color is even in the whole negative, then it should not affect optical printing at all. What film is it? Some of them have residual dye after processing (like Tri-X) and there is a lot of discussion going on how to get rid of it, but it does not cause problems at all.

Thanks so much for the heads up. Yes indeed, the purple color is even and consistent throughout the entire negative and throughout the entire roll. I can't remember for certain what film it is, but I *think* it was Neopan Acros 100. That's a relief to know it won't cause problems in optical printing.

 

[mauro35]

In my personal experience Acros 100 is usually dye-free after normal processing and proper fixing. If the purple staining is intense you might want to consider trying to refix the roll as that is an indication of insufficient fixing. It won´t harm the prints, but the negative could have a shorter life-span. On the other hand Kodak Tri-X is usually slightly purple even after correct processing.

 

[darkosaric]

John, where are you located? Maybe some of the APUG members can do prints for you at lower price, and as an extra you can watch prints made in the darkroom .

Here in Europe for 20x30 cm FB print you pay around 35€ and more.

 

[pharmboycu]

John, where are you located? Maybe some of the APUG members can do prints for you at lower price, and as an extra you can watch prints made in the darkroom .

Here in Europe for 20x30 cm FB print you pay around 35€ and more.

I'm actually in central North Carolina in the US. If there are any members who are willing/interested in helping me with this project, I would be most grateful! It would be fun to actually have a part in the printing-- I haven't done that since my 7th grade photography course.

John

 

[pharmboycu]

In my personal experience Acros 100 is usually dye-free after normal processing and proper fixing. If the purple staining is intense you might want to consider trying to refix the roll as that is an indication of insufficient fixing. It won´t harm the prints, but the negative could have a shorter life-span. On the other hand Kodak Tri-X is usually slightly purple even after correct processing.

Thank you so much-- a kind forum member has PM'd me with detailed instructions on how to refix and hopefully eliminate the pink/purple color in the negative. It's a very important negative (to me, at least) so I'll do just that.

John

 

[Regular Rod]

Hi all--

Please accept my apology in advance if I've posted in the wrong forum or if soliciting recommendations is taboo.

A couple of years ago, I had my 7.5 minutes of photography fame when National Geographic chose my photo as the "photo of the day" on their website. (I only give myself half credit for the "15 minutes of fame" because that was the day the N.G. website was hacked and my photo was only visible for about half the day.)

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/dogtags-chandelier/

I'm toying with the idea to have a few really nice, optical prints made of this negative for some special people. My concern is that the negative has a bit of a purplish hue, presumably due to my inept developing. When I posted the image to the N.G. site I did an autocorrect on the colors to fix this.

May I ask for a recommendation of a lab that could optically print this 35 mm B&W negative at a decent size (8X10 or larger for framing purposes) and can also handle any corrections necessary with the negative? If there are any labs or lab operators who post here, that would be great. After all, if I need such a service, best to direct the business to a member of the forum, right?

Also, being that this is the first time I've even considered doing this, may I ask if 3-5 prints at such a size will be a wallet buster? Not looking for exact prices (unless they are already published somewhere I've missed), but just a general idea.

Thank you all, yet again, in advance!

John

http://www.ilfordlab.com/

RR

 

[Rick A]

I'm not that close, but I would print the photos for the OP.

 

[edcculus]

I live in upstate SC and could possibly do some prints for you as well. Not that distance really matters as it would be cheap to mail the negative, and even mail the prints back.

 

[dehk]

Looks like I don't have to volunteer myself!

 

[shutterboy]

Just to let you know, I am in Columbia, SC. And I could do a few 11x14 FBs for you

Just a note, please please please stay away from RC paper. :-/

Cheers

 

[Rick A]

Just a note, please please please stay away from RC paper. :-/

Cheers

Any reason for this sentiment? What exactly is "wrong" with RC paper?

 

[vpwphoto]

Just to let you know, I am in Columbia, SC. And I could do a few 11x14 FBs for you

Just a note, please please please stay away from RC paper. :-/

Cheers

I agree... yet some of my favorite prints have been made on RC paper. No absolutes for me.

I make small runs of prints too. I have references etc. (One an ex-Natl Geographic Staff Photographer) PM me if you want a quote.

Cheers.

 

[shutterboy]

Any reason for this sentiment? What exactly is "wrong" with RC paper?

Nothing is wrong. I just don't like the feel or surface of the paper. And, archivability. Also, RC (in my opinion, and please feel free to disagree/ignore) does not respond that well (maybe at all) to increase/decrease of time in the developer. Also, sometimes, I prefer to rub my palms on parts of the print while it is in developer bath to increase the blacks. I know it is not ideal, but gives me more flexibility from burning selectively over and over again and saving some paper. I am a student, so have to keep a good watch on the budget as well.

 

[Rick A]

Sounds like someone learnt a crapload of folk lore off the interweb. There is no difference in archival duration between FB abd RC paper when processed properly. As to your strange processing procedures........

 

[darkosaric]

To Each His Own - not to go away from initial post, no need to go over again in RC vs FB .

 

[shutterboy]

Sounds like someone learnt a crapload of folk lore off the interweb. There is no difference in archival duration between FB abd RC paper when processed properly.

OR, blame my professor. I have not aged either of the papers to determine their archival characteristics. If you say both are equal, so be it.

As to your strange processing procedures........

Well, yeah I would say it is not standard. But it works for me. Again, learnt this technique from my professor.

 

[pharmboycu]

Thank you to everyone for the replies. Now if I can just locate my original negative... It's in my apartment... somewhere...

John

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Surprised no one said anything: beautiful image!

 

[dorff]

Also, sometimes, I prefer to rub my palms on parts of the print while it is in developer bath to increase the blacks.

I hope you are wearing gloves, or using a metol-free developer. Mind you, add hydroquinone and phenidone to the list of things you don't want skin contact with. Metol-induced dermatitis will be the end of the pleasure you experience in the darkroom.

Using developing time for paper density is a recipe for inconsistency and potential longer term problems. It is much better to develop the paper fully, and get the density you need through proper exposure, including burning and dodging. If the blacks in your prints are properly exposed, they will not require special shenanigans to develop. You can simply use your paper tongs to agitate the developer a bit, or lift and submerge the paper or rock the tray gently, so that the developer is not stagnant over any particular area. Make sure the developer is fresh and warm enough (20 C), and all should be well.

As far as paper is concerned, FB has its beauty. But behind glass most papers look more or less the same.

Anyway, kind gesture of you to offer to print it for him. You deserve a nod for that.

 

[pharmboycu]

Surprised no one said anything: beautiful image!

Thank you sir! I was reluctant to post the link because 1) I'm not a subscriber (yet) and I believe the general consensus favors becoming a subscriber and posting images in the gallery over posting a link and 2) I was afraid it would come off as bragging/self-promotion, which was not my intent.

In truth, the image was a happy accident and I didn't think it was worthy of consideration for a photo of the day. I simply ran out of faster film, loaded up the 100 speed (Acros, I think... either that or Fomapan), and did the best I could. It was the only shot on the roll that turned out okay. It was my first attempt at developing my own B&W and I forgot to leave my cell phone outside the bathroom while winding the film onto the reel... a phone call came in and the phone lit up the room. (DOH!!)

John

 

[edcculus]

I quite agree. The image is really great.

OR, blame my professor. I have not aged either of the papers to determine their archival characteristics. If you say both are equal, so be it.



Well, yeah I would say it is not standard. But it works for me. Again, learnt this technique from my professor.

Tell your professor to come take some classes at Clemson to learn proper printing techniques . Haha, just kidding. I don't know where you go to school, but I couldn't help to get that Clemson VS USC jab in.

 

[MattKing]

The technique of rubbing the print to bring out detail has a great pedigree - all of it in old time newspaper darkrooms!
"Stop the presses - I`ve got a great photo for page 1 here in the developer!"

 

[LarsAC]

Interesting image, I like the abstract pattern and the composition. I recommend to print in 30x40 at least. Starting with that size prints start to look impressive.

Also, I am interested, what different ideas for an interpretation in print APUG members might come up with.

Lars