SUCESSFUL TEST----YAAAAAHHHHOOOOOO

Well, I don't think I have lost my touch. Thank Goodness.
I mixed RA-4 this evening and took an old Vericolor lll negative of my parents, been deceased for a number of years, and used this for a test negative with the new color setup. I had written down the filtration from when I printed it in the mid 80's and used this to start. I couldn't believe it printed the same filtertration. Back then I was using Kodak paper and this test was with Fuji. It took only 3 test pieces for the exposure standard. I am totally floored that it worked out this good with trays. I had set up a safelight and blocked it off until I could just barely see the tray. Made a safelight test with paper partially blocked off on half of it and it didn't show any signs of color shift.
Now I have to get the film dept. setup going. I'll do that this weekend and shoot a roll of Ektar.
Just thought I'd shout a little on here on the sucessful setup.

Richard

RichardH said:

Well, I don't think I have lost my touch. Thank Goodness.
I mixed RA-4 this evening and took an old Vericolor lll negative of my parents, been deceased for a number of years, and used this for a test negative with the new color setup. I had written down the filtration from when I printed it in the mid 80's and used this to start. I couldn't believe it printed the same filtertration. Back then I was using Kodak paper and this test was with Fuji. It took only 3 test pieces for the exposure standard. I am totally floored that it worked out this good with trays. I had set up a safelight and blocked it off until I could just barely see the tray. Made a safelight test with paper partially blocked off on half of it and it didn't show any signs of color shift.
Now I have to get the film dept. setup going. I'll do that this weekend and shoot a roll of Ektar.
Just thought I'd shout a little on here on the sucessful setup.

Richard

Click to expand...

That's awesome and welcome home!

I'm a big fan of Ektar. I use it religiously, but started testing out Porta 160. I am absolutely FLOORED with this film. With these two together, you can't go wrong in color.

Congratulations!! Well done!!

Congratulations and keep up the good work.

mikecnichols said:

That's awesome and welcome home!

I'm a big fan of Ektar. I use it religiously, but started testing out Porta 160. I am absolutely FLOORED with this film. With these two together, you can't go wrong in color.

Click to expand...

Well, I slept better knowing my venture was good.

I would think the Porta 160 would be about the same as Vericolor lll I used to shoot. I'll try some of that also in the next few weeks. Probably more skin tone color oriented than Ektar.

When I ordered the chemicals, I got a lot of 4x5 Ektar with the order and hope to get in the mountains real soon with it. A little cooler there than in the foothills. First though is getting the film stuff setup for a smooth operation on that end.

Also thanks everyone for putting up with my questions.


Richard

Printing color is easy and awesome! I just started printing color a few weeks ago and have had great results! Portra 400 is my main film...However, I think I'm going to do some landscapes with Ektar 100.

It's great to know more people or doing this!

jayvo86 said:

Printing color is easy and awesome! I just started printing color a few weeks ago and have had great results! Portra 400 is my main film...However, I think I'm going to do some landscapes with Ektar 100.

It's great to know more people or doing this!

Click to expand...

It's a lot of fun and a really fast process....especially when you get your "system" down.

RichardH said:

Well, I don't think I have lost my touch. Thank Goodness.
I mixed RA-4 this evening and took an old Vericolor lll negative of my parents, been deceased for a number of years, and used this for a test negative with the new color setup. I had written down the filtration from when I printed it in the mid 80's and used this to start. I couldn't believe it printed the same filtertration.

Click to expand...

Picture (of the picture) or it didn't happen!

Tony-S said:

Picture (of the picture) or it didn't happen!

Click to expand...

Hey Tony
I don't have a scanner. If I could scan it, I would send the results. The 16x20 I printed back then has lost a tad of the color it had but this one, from my memory, pretty well matched it. It came out just a tad warmer but it amazed me it was so close. 25 years ago and it still has very good color. When I printed the 16x20, I was using an Omega dicro. and this new one was with acetate filters with a Beseler 45mx. I'm still shocked by the results. Sorry I can't show results but!!!!! Maybe in the future.
I guess a scanner will be in the works in the near future. I'm not much up on the digital things that I should be, but it's never too late to learn a new trick.

Thanks
Richard

RichardH said:

Hey Tony
I don't have a scanner. If I could scan it, I would send the results. The 16x20 I printed back then has lost a tad of the color it had but this one, from my memory, pretty well matched it. It came out just a tad warmer but it amazed me it was so close. 25 years ago and it still has very good color. When I printed the 16x20, I was using an Omega dicro. and this new one was with acetate filters with a Beseler 45mx. I'm still shocked by the results. Sorry I can't show results but!!!!! Maybe in the future.
I guess a scanner will be in the works in the near future. I'm not much up on the digital things that I should be, but it's never too late to learn a new trick.

Thanks
Richard

Click to expand...

iPhone? P&S?

What kind of safelight? What filter? I know there are LEDs that are safe with limited exposure. My Duka 50 I know to be safe, but the sodium vapor tube in it is not replaceable now at any price so once it goes, it's gone. I'm used (or was, in the day) printing color with a safelight. I know Ron posted that they used one at Kodak all the time, regardless of what their literature said. I believe that's a #13 conventional filter? Wouldn't be as bright as my Duka but even making out outlines is a huge help.

jayvo86 said:

iPhone? P&S?

Click to expand...

HI
I have a P&S that I use for things I sometime sell on Ebay. I think I would have to join this group, and I will, before I am allowed to send a download. I'll join this week and put something on here.

Thanks
Richard

Roger Cole said:

What kind of safelight? What filter? I know there are LEDs that are safe with limited exposure. My Duka 50 I know to be safe, but the sodium vapor tube in it is not replaceable now at any price so once it goes, it's gone. I'm used (or was, in the day) printing color with a safelight. I know Ron posted that they used one at Kodak all the time, regardless of what their literature said. I believe that's a #13 conventional filter? Wouldn't be as bright as my Duka but even making out outlines is a huge help.

Click to expand...

Hey Roger
It is a Kodak, 10x12 with a #13 filter with a 15w bulb. I covered it with black plastic and cut a 2" square hole in the center of the plastic. I thought when doing it that I could cover the hole a little at a time until no fogging. It is about 3 feet over the trays. I can just barely see the trays but just enough to see the print in the dev. I also turn the print upside down just to make sure. I tried it with the print emulsion up and it didn't fog the white any, so I think I am ok with this. I left the paper out on the easel about 1 minute before printing and it didn't fog the white that was covered by the blades of the easel in another test.
It's not bright like a B+W darkroom but enough to see the trays. I think today, I'll make a few more test and cut the hole bigger and see just how far I can go with it before fogging happens. You can still buy sodium vapor bulbs but I think the smallest you can get at a electrical supply house is 50 watts. Then again the heat they would put out would be something to deal with also. I don't know what style the Duka uses but the S,V, lamp that they sell at the supply houses aren't that bad of a price. I was a electrician and contractor for 35 years until I finally retired from it. I know in past post that I stated I had a studio for years and I did for 10 years until I closed it down because I didn't want to go digital. Sales started dropping off when the digital stuff started showing up at weddings and things.

Back to the light. Open the light up and see if it looks like a long tube with a standard base. If it is, take it to a supply house and see if they can get or have one on hand.
I know that florescent lamps put out a greener color, since you normally use a warming filter to compensate for film, so I wonder what the new florescent lamps, that you have to buy now, put out. For black and white, I used to use a yellow bug light with a dimmer switch on it to dim the output. It would be fun to play with the new bulbs a little just to see what I can get by with.

Have you tried any other safelight? If you have, let me know what you came up with.

Thanks
Richard

I bet you can remove the cover on the #13, if the safelight is far enough away or bounced off a light colored wall.

My comment that the Duka 50 bulbs/tubes are unavailable came from discussion on the large format forum. It doesn't look anything like the long tube in, say, a Thomas Duplex, which is readily available and not even expensive if you get a different brand. (Though there are color printing filters for it too - suitably filtered that might be an option.) I looked for a web photo of the Duka, not worth a trip down to the darkroom to snap mine and found one on ebay in the UK. If this were in the US I'd grab it. It makes a superb black and white safelight too, I just quit using mine for that because I wanted to preserve the tube life. I have a Jobo maxi-lux LED that is supposed to be safe for color and I've no doubt will be bounced and suitably reduced, but it's a very narrow beam.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Kaiser-Du...6377456?pt=UK_Photography_DarkroomSupplies_SM

Roger Cole said:

I bet you can remove the cover on the #13, if the safelight is far enough away or bounced off a light colored wall.

My comment that the Duka 50 bulbs/tubes are unavailable came from discussion on the large format forum. It doesn't look anything like the long tube in, say, a Thomas Duplex, which is readily available and not even expensive if you get a different brand. (Though there are color printing filters for it too - suitably filtered that might be an option.) I looked for a web photo of the Duka, not worth a trip down to the darkroom to snap mine and found one on ebay in the UK. If this were in the US I'd grab it. It makes a superb black and white safelight too, I just quit using mine for that because I wanted to preserve the tube life. I have a Jobo maxi-lux LED that is supposed to be safe for color and I've no doubt will be bounced and suitably reduced, but it's a very narrow beam.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Kaiser-Du...6377456?pt=UK_Photography_DarkroomSupplies_SM

Click to expand...

Hey Roger
I just got out of the darkroom and I opened the hole up quite a lot. Still no fog. This evening I am going to just take the cover off and see what happens. I was starting to print from a negative I had from the 80's of an old church that was in pretty bad shape when I shot it. It has since been restored but this neg. was long before the restoration. The first test was totally cyan. Since I had just printed something from the same time period yesterday it really floored me on what was going on. I dumped the developer. Fresh batch, same thing. This really floored me. After numerous things of trying, I finally looked at the negative and it was an old Vericolor ll. I had printed the last run with a Vericolor lll. Totally different base and emulsion. I can't remember when Kodak went from ll to lll but I think it was in the late 80's. I finally got the filters down to a pretty good color but now that I am starting to work with Ektar, I don't know what I'll run into on that. I haven't shot any Ektar yet but will this week and then we'll see what needs to be done from there.

Do you print very much color? Just wondering.

I've been thinking about getting a analyzer and setting it up. I used one for a long time in the 80's. I could shoot my hand and set it up for the skin tone. Then each time I shoot, just shoot my hand on one frame. Except 4x5. Too expensive to waste a sheet for that.

I'll let you know how the safelight test goes.

Later
Richard

Nope. Used to print color in the 80s, but that was all type R and a small amount of what was then Cibachrome, and in the 90s (RA4.) Haven't done it since the late 90s, but plan to get back to it. I just have so little time for darkroom work I'm way behind on black and white. Hate to add another thing I haven't time for to the backlog!

Be sure to do a safelight test with pre-fogged paper. Just like B&W it will have a threshold exposure then fog much more easily once off the toe.

Ektar is a great film for landscapes, flowers, anything where you want really saturated color. In my experience not so great for portraits (at least of white people) but ok for shots where people are in the scene but not the only subject. I've only had commercial prints and scans of it so far, however.

Roger Cole said:

Nope. Used to print color in the 80s, but that was all type R and a small amount of what was then Cibachrome, and in the 90s (RA4.) Haven't done it since the late 90s, but plan to get back to it. I just have so little time for darkroom work I'm way behind on black and white. Hate to add another thing I haven't time for to the backlog!

Be sure to do a safelight test with pre-fogged paper. Just like B&W it will have a threshold exposure then fog much more easily once off the toe.

Ektar is a great film for landscapes, flowers, anything where you want really saturated color. In my experience not so great for portraits (at least of white people) but ok for shots where people are in the scene but not the only subject. I've only had commercial prints and scans of it so far, however.

Click to expand...

Hey again Roger
Well I am a bit not sure how to pre-fog it. Is that something like expose it with no negative for 1 or 2 seconds and then leave it out for say, 1 minute before developing??? I have and do B+W but I usually just leave it out for a period of time just part of it covered up with something and then develop it. Am I going about this safelight thing wrong??
That is how I am doing it now. Putting it in the easel for a period of 1 minute and let the blades cover up part of the paper and then dev. it. Then if there isn't any difference in the white, I'm thinking I'm OK. How is the best way to do this? Please explain because you have gotten me to thinking that I am not doing it right. This old bald headed brain has some cobwebs in it.

I used to admire Cibachrome. They simply were something to behold on color. Too bad there is no more of it. Never did any or type R. I just never shot chrome.

Thanks
Richard

OK Roger
Here is how the next test went. I took the dark cover off the safelight and at the trays, where the light is, I covered a piece with a dark cover for 1 minute. The exposed side was a pretty Carolina Blue. Nothing on the blocked side. Next, I covered the light 1/2 way, Took another piece and blocked a portion every 10 seconds for 1 minute. processed it and I couldn't tell any difference in white over the whole sheet.
So, if I am understanding your fogging procedure correctly, I am good with the safelight on unexposed paper for at least 60 seconds before any fogging occurs. That's how long I did the bracket test. Every 10 seconds for 1 minute. I understand pre=fogging B+W to gray the highlights but if I did that with color paper then I would be adding blue to the color from the dark yellow safelight. If I am not following you on the safelight testing then I need to know how to do it other than this way. Any way I can learn something I am game for it. If this is a decent way, then I think I am good with paper out of the box for 1 minute without worrying. The enlarger is far enough away that I can't see my hand in front of my nose so I feel safe with that end.
Let me know your thoughts on this.

Richard

Thanks
Richard

Here's what you do - expose the paper with no negative, handling and processing the paper in total darkness. Doing this, find an exposure that slightly fogs the paper, say something like a zone VII or so in black and white terms. You don't have to worry about color balance. Then for your safelight test, take a piece of paper out, again in total darkness, and give it that base fogging exposure. Then cover part of it, place coins on it, whatever, and turn your safelight on. Leave it on for the period you want to test for (or do as you did with this one and cover or uncover slices at intervals, like doing a test strip) and then turn the safelight off again and process in total darkness. That will sort out what's safelight and what isn't, and get the paper over the toe end exposure threshold.

That's what I'd suggest anyway.

Oh, type R - I did that because I was a broke high school then almost as broke college student, and it was about half the price of Cibachrome. It looked good, actually. PITA to process compared to Ciba because Ciba was at 75F and you could adjust the developer time a bit for cooler temperatures, while type R ran at 100F IIRC. I'd do temperature control with my solutions in a water bath in aluminum soda cans then when it was right, pour into a print drum. I warmed the outside of the drum but didn't worry about controlling the temperature during, and it came out fine. Prints looked, IMO, just as good as prints from negatives of the time, provided you started with a good slide. A bit more contrasty than negative papers but not as much as Cibachrome. I liked it versus negs because I had a reference to consult for the color and it seemed much less sensitive to filter pack than the negative papers of the day - EP2 I guess it was. RA4 was a big step up, and I did that in the 90s.

I used the Duka for Ciba and type R too. The papers were much slower than EP2 and WAY slower than RA4, so that helped keep it safe. Worked fine. Typical exposures were more like 30-45 seconds though, and that's for 8x10s. Made dodging easy, burning time consuming (and of course they responded "backwards" - you burn to lighten, dodge to darken.)

Hey Roger
Thanks for the info. I'll try that today and see how the safelight test goes. Just about what I was doing but I didn't do it in total darkness.
In the older days, Cibachrome was the ultimate photo to view. I had a friend ( back then ) that only did slides and I would just drool over the color and sharpness of them. I guess that is one part of photography that I didn't try.
I'll let you know how it goes this week.

Later
Richard