SUCCESS. VDB first printing. thanks

hi all,

just an update. i printed/am printing my first Van Dyke attempt.

so far it is working perfect. my sensitizer solution is fine thanks to Dana.

i am using foma100 negs souped in pyro hd 1:1:100 for 12 min at 70F. i am using arches paper. i am not sure which one. i am pretty sure it is not platine. it is the one with the "infinity" watermark on it. i have single coated the paper. i have the negs out in the sun (here on a winter day in NY) for about 30 min for the first batch. i found that the neg that is the most dense is way under exposed. the "regular" density neg turned out fairly well.

the second batch i exposed for 40 min. they look a bit better.

i have another batch in the sun now. the negs are a bit less dense and i am exposing them for 30 min.

i am developing them in citric acid then fix (K thisosufate) and then hypo clear (K sulfite) then wash.

my only question now is why do we want a dense neg? why expose the neg extra and develop longer? seems that my "regular" negs are working fine. (i have one more set waiting that i used hc110 and shot at box speed, just to see the difference)

okay maybe another question. how many negs can i use with my citric acid solution before i should change it? i am using 4x5 now.

i will post a photo or two when they all dry.

thanks again for all the help! i am very excited that this is working for me!

eddie

eddie gunks said:

my only question now is why do we want a dense neg? why expose the neg extra and develop longer? seems that my "regular" negs are working fine. (i have one more set waiting that i used hc110 and shot at box speed, just to see the difference)


eddie

Click to expand...

Eddie,

If you are getting good results there is no reason to make a denser negative.

Generally we need a negative with very high contrast to print VDB, so we need to develop about 50-100% longer than would be correct for silver printing. You don't want to over-expose, however, as that would just increase time of exposure.

Sandy King

my first attempt.

eddie gunks said:

...i have single coated the paper. i have the negs out in the sun (here on a winter day in NY) for about 30 min for the first batch. i found that the neg that is the most dense is way under exposed...

my only question now is why do we want a dense neg? why expose the neg extra and develop longer? seems that my "regular" negs are working fine...
eddie

Click to expand...

Hi Eddy,

Congrats and welcome to the club.

I'm curious about a couple things you have posted. First, the picture you have posted looks like it has been double-coated because of the two distinct tones/colors in the non-image border. Did you switch methods?

Second, the exposures seem longish to me though it being winter and mid-latitudes, maybe that's the cause. However, I seem to recall you posted about having a problem with a precipitate of silver in the solution that took some extra tartaric acid to dissolve. I wonder if that has affected the emulsion speed and led to long exposure times.

Another possibility is that the glass in your proofing frame may be absorbing UV to which the emulsion is sensitive. You might try using a sheet of regular 1/4" plate glass instead of the proofer you have been using just to see if it makes a difference.

In answer to your question about developing the negatives longer, let me illustrate the reason with a film test I did several years ago. The image is on double-coated Cranes' Kid Finish ecruwhite stationery. Notice on the rightmost negative, all steps from 1-17 have separation and the maximum tone (d-max) is very much darker than the darkest tone in your print. I'm getting an exposure scale of approximately 2.1 with this combo. Your range is about half that. So, if you want to be able to print much darker shadow values without the highlights going too dark at the same time, you need a negative with expanded contrast. This will allow the thin areas of the negative to print dark with separation while allowing the highlights to print as well. (Double-coating will also increase the maximum print density.)

To do this, print exposures will need to be longer than those needed to print a negative intended for silver-gelatin printing. This is why I question whether your chemistry is somehow lacking proper speed.



Joe

hey joe,

you are right. that piece was double coated. i did that on two of my sheets just to see what happened.....i did not allow it to dry between coats. i just put some on then did the other sheet and came back to the first. am i supposed to wait to double coat? i know i should be more empirical but that is no fun......

again you are correct about the problem with the sensitizer. i did add more tartaric acid as dana suggested. i added less than a gram so it was not all that much (i think) but i did add more. i will try the regular glass and i may mix up another batch of sensitizer to see if i can get it to come out better.

i have learned alot with this. thanks to everyone! let me share some more of my learning (read mistakes) from this. i also added too much citric acid to my developer later on in my process and my later prints suffered significant shadow detail loss. i may have had too much in all along. i will pay particular attention to this next time.

i am not sure about the sun. it was about 9am when i made my first exposure. so it was probably 9:30-10am when i made the image i posted. i thought it was just cause the sun was low in the sky....but maybe it is my sensitizer. Oh! can i expose in direct sunlight? i just read somewhere you should do it out of direct sun light.....but that sounds crazy to me.

i will keep you all posted on this. i am having a great time so i will be back soon (as soon as i get get time off when the sun is up!)

cheers

eddie

eddie gunks said:

hey joe,

...i did not allow it to dry between coats. i just put some on then did the other sheet and came back to the first. am i supposed to wait to double coat?...

Click to expand...

I always wait for the first coat to dry thoroughly before adding the second.

Joe

Just curious, Joe: your notes gives that you somehow soaked the TMX in alcohol - for what reason?

Several years ago, Kodak changed the manufacturing process for TMAX 100 (and I believe Plus-X pan) and "improved" the film base so that it blocked UV radiation. Somehow this new base was intended to improve the manufacturing process. Unfortunately for alternative processes, the new UV base blocked exposure by about 2+ stops as seen in the example I posted. There was a rumor on the web at the time that the UV coating could be stripped from the film by a treatment in isopropyl alcohol. I did not find that to be the case as shown above. For the middle sheet, I soaked half of it (with agitation) in alcohol. All three sheets in the test were printed on the same sheet of VDB for the same exposure. The loss of effective exposure is pretty obvious in the TMX compared to the other films. IIRC, the HP5+ actually had a visible density greater than the TMX, yet it still printed faster.

No big deal if you are printing on silver gelatin, but an increase in exposure of 2 stops with VDB for example, would make a 15-minute exposure into an hour exposure.

If you read up on the new 400 TMY emulsion, you will find Kodak was petitioned not to change the film base and they apparently listened.

Thanks Joe for the explanation, that was what I expected the soaking to be, an effort to remove the UV layer. And it's good to know they don't use the UV layer on the new TMY sheet film, in case I would want to try it out for alt processes.

hi all,

i just printed some more stuff. this time i used my newly arrived arches platine paper. WOW what a difference that makes. i got better shadows AND better highlights when compared to my cheap arches water color paper (all i could get locally).

i measured my citric acid very critically this time and i have much better results. i used the water color paper also just to compare to last weeks session. then i use platine and boy, that stuff is way better! (i found a good source over at "Dead Link Removed" in NC. they got it to me fast and well packed!

more pics when i get them dried and scanned. thanks!

eddie

platine is goooood.

I also remember using Platine the first time for my VDB's - Wow!
It's the finest paper I've used so far for rich dmax. However, it's also very finicky when it comes to relative humidity. you have to humidify it in the winter months or it looks like crap! There has been other threads on this very topic recently. Also, it seems harder to clear when using toners, especially gold.

-david

the pictue of the wheels i did 2 weeks ago. i am getting better shadow and highlight details since switching to arches platine.

the shot of the building is way better with the new paper. my newest question is why is the wheel photo richer than the building? i had made a building photo when i did the wheel photo but i gave it away. i just made the building photo again today and it is not as rich. i am using the same sensitizer and paper and exposure times (with the sun). what could it be?

thanks

eddie

oh! the photos may help.....

those look good eddie. One day I hope to give this a shot