- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,523
- Format
- 35mm RF
Soak the film in de-ionised water for about 30 seconds at the end of wash and just before you hang the film up to dry. No drying marks ever.
what is the last thing you developed or printed
-
A
- Thread starter removed account4
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Under Offer Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Leica 14510 leather case for R-E, R4, R5, R6.
- Started by Chrismat
-
For Sale FS: A Pair of NORMAN Flash Tube Covers
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
- Status
Soak the film in de-ionised water for about 30 seconds at the end of wash and just before you hang the film up to dry. No drying marks ever.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,651
- Format
- Multi Format
Well, this is the first time I had little to no drying marks, so it might be a fluke.
I will be using Photo-flo in the future, but have to wait until I expose some more "test" rolls. Even when I mix surfactant as directed I get some artifact from it. There are countless threads on mixing it, but I just have to find my own way on this regarding dilution. I now actually have Kodak's version, not another brand, so we'll see if that makes a difference (again, a lot of diverse information on these things here on APUG).
Anyway, what may have worked for me this time was quite simple, and I picked it up from a couple threads on APUG.
First, this was done after running the shower for a bit, so the bathroom had a decent amount of humidity; I think that helped with the dust.
Then, after washing the film, I left it on the reels, shook the reels out a bit, and left them on their sides for a while before taking the film out to hang it. This way the water ran to the sides instead of down the length of the film. I don't have the room to hang them diagonally as I've also seen suggested.
Of course, there has to be balance... this came at the cost of my carelessly loading the film, so I did screw up a few frames where the film was touching itself.
Do not use a squeegee. Let it drip dry.
Roll of agfavista 200 in tetenal c41 .
I made up the chems just about a year ago and I must have put a dozen or fifteen rolls through it.
Looks ok if a little flat in contrast, but as I only ever scan colour and this was only a test roll for a newly acquired xa, not worried
I made up the chems just about a year ago and I must have put a dozen or fifteen rolls through it.
Looks ok if a little flat in contrast, but as I only ever scan colour and this was only a test roll for a newly acquired xa, not worried
Oy vey! Last night I developed the roll of film I found in my Minox B when I rediscovered it a few years back. It was labeled Agfapan 100 -- the pre-APX variety. It was a 36 exposure roll, which I didn't know, so the end got sucked into the take-up spool, meaning I couldn't use my handy-dandy Minox Daylight Load Tank until I did some tedious work in the dark (can ya see where this is going? ... 
)
I couldn't find much to relate to developing the old Agfapan 100, some say it was pretty much like the later flavor, others say not. So I interpolated, divided by Planck's constant, multiplied by Avogadro's number and went with 13 minutes in HC110 1+49 -- at about 65ºF -- shoulda planned farther ahead on energizing the little space heater. To my amazement, I can barely see some frames of exposure on it, but the base fog must be about where one might want zone 8. Maybe I can scan it with one of those industrial X-rays used for checking pipeline welds.
My extremely vague recollection is that I took the camera on a bike ride with some friends from work, pedaling off on a summer Saturday circa 1978 or 79. And since I didn't finish the roll, put the camera aside to "finish the roll later" -- HA! I have no idea what the expiration date of the film may have been. I still own a roll of Plus-X dated 1972!
So at least I've broken the ice, found the "destructions" for using the tank, and gone through the motions once. I have two new rolls of Delta 100 received from Blue Moon a week or two back, so if the every-other-day wintry mix here ever stops, perhaps I can try another roll with higher probability of success.
) I couldn't find much to relate to developing the old Agfapan 100, some say it was pretty much like the later flavor, others say not. So I interpolated, divided by Planck's constant, multiplied by Avogadro's number and went with 13 minutes in HC110 1+49 -- at about 65ºF -- shoulda planned farther ahead on energizing the little space heater. To my amazement, I can barely see some frames of exposure on it, but the base fog must be about where one might want zone 8. Maybe I can scan it with one of those industrial X-rays used for checking pipeline welds.
My extremely vague recollection is that I took the camera on a bike ride with some friends from work, pedaling off on a summer Saturday circa 1978 or 79. And since I didn't finish the roll, put the camera aside to "finish the roll later" -- HA! I have no idea what the expiration date of the film may have been. I still own a roll of Plus-X dated 1972!
So at least I've broken the ice, found the "destructions" for using the tank, and gone through the motions once. I have two new rolls of Delta 100 received from Blue Moon a week or two back, so if the every-other-day wintry mix here ever stops, perhaps I can try another roll with higher probability of success.
All you need is a good splicing tool to peel off the extra layer of image and a special adhesive to stick it to the unexposed yet already developed sheets of film:
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
I generally stop after I've done the first holder like this, but to have the sheer grit and determination to carry on through the other two, that really shows commitment ...
Dear Bill, not the first and certainly not the last.....into every photographers life some rain must fall !
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Testing my home made UV light source for carbon transfer. I'm getting closer to what I want.
Looking really nice Rick! Is that the 500W halogen worklight with the UV filter removed? I recently got one but haven't tried it yet... although I have rigged up a switch so that I don't need to go near it to turn it on and off. Need to figure out how to mount it before I try it. As you might remember I have some doubts about this... there is something about using the sun that "feels right" for making salt prints. But if I was doing carbon transfer I'd want a good light.
Bravo to you for fessing up and sharing.
Hi Rick,
Looking good so I guess you will get there.
I was wondering if this image was a bit underexposed and/or did you use brown instead of lamp black for pigment?
Bert from Holland
I wasn't getting consistent results with the QH lamp. I was at a place I hate to shop at(starts with W) and stumbled on some 24 inch black lights, bulb and fixture for $10 each and bought all they had in stock. I got four and mounted them under a recycled piece of furniture and can do 8x10's with it. I'm going back to see if they got any more in so I can expand to make 16x20's. This was a 20 minute exposure at 4 inches below the lamps.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is under exposed, and the pigment is mostly brown with a few cc's of India ink, on cream base paper.
Thanks, yes I know those. I made an enclosure for one when my daughter had a geology science fair project and had some rocks that turned colors under UV. That seems like a simple and reasonably inexpensive way to go!
I'm into it for $40 bucks plus an extra dark room timer I already had . Oh yeah, and an old strip plug from the basement. I just got an 11x14 camera, so I've already outgrown this. I have the parts to make a vacuum contact frame, that's my next project.
2 rolls of Premium Arista 400 in Rodinal 2+75 for 9:30mins. Absolutely beautiful...
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
cyanotype with waxed paper negative
actually it is still being exposed, 24 hours now ...
actually it is still being exposed, 24 hours now ...
Show us when it's done!
I made a salt print from a calotype a few day ago... still in "testing mode" trying to learn how best to expose and develop the calotypes. I'm using a new kind of paper for the calotypes and it is taking time to learn. Getting closer though, they are getting better and better....
I've had to "unlearn" some things for these processes: I was coating salt prints under a safelight, and it really helped to move out into my room and just close the blinds so I could see what I was doing better. With developing calotypes, I was using a weak flashlight to try to guage exposure, but last time by dumb luck the flashlight had been moved by my daughter and I couldn't find it. So I used a very bright LED flashlight with an orange filter taped over the end.. wow what a difference. I could finally really see ( by transmissive light ) how the development was going. Compared to the paper I was using before, this new paper needs more development ( and slightly less exposure ) to get a good dense negative for salt prints... so the highlights don't start to get tone before the darks are nice and deeply printed.
My last print was this past weekend, some copies of the same photograph, for an interchange between members of an Spanish medium format forum ( formatomedio.eu ). The print, in Ilford MG IV FB WT was, afterwards, toned in tiourea and selenium.
My apologize for the crapy phone picture I took.
My apologize for the crapy phone picture I took.
Attachments
I process regularly. Fuji Acros 100 in Rodinal clone R09 one shot 1-50.
Last box of Fotokemika Emaks is opened - the whole weekend I printed, around 25 prints (30x40 cm).
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |