When I read this I knew ChatGTP was talking baloney. And need advice on a overly complicated situation related to salt prints.

[Lemmythink]

So the ChatGTP realisation was from me asking questions over a few weeks finally dialing it down to "If I'm using FP4+ how should I expose and develop it for salt prints, is there any preference between PQ and MG developer for those doing this process?" . The reply was MG would "give warmer tones". So could anybody advise on this, as all it's info to date might be wrong too (over expose by a stop and give 20% more development in ID11).

To my complicated question, that I will make super easy. Since returning to film I've got well over 1 years worth of film to develop. From everything pinhole to 5x4. I don't know what film was used, when or anything other that if it was pushed. Likewise my darkroom doesn't look like it's going to be done in my life time now. How would you develop all these films with an eye to salt prints? Is there any way to develop them to hit a spot that I could salt print and enlarge to traditional silver paper? Do I need to push with microphen for instance (ChatGTP says no)? Or say develop for a 'safe' neg and use some intensification method for choice negs for salt prints?

Films are generally PanF HP5 Harman Pan 100 & 400 Foma Pan Classic 100 Foma 400 Ortho.

I'm asking because I've hoping to get some great flower shots very very soon!

 

[koraks]

By the sounds of it, ChatGPT is throwing you for a loop. Ignore it; the subject is too niche for it to produce usable results.

As to your to-be-develooed film: do you know what film each roll or sheet is? General advice is to overdevelop by about 100% for salt prints, if you're using a normal non-staining developer. A staining developer (like pyrocat) will require less overdevelopment as the pyro stain will add a significant amount of UV density.

Personally I don't overdevelop my film when I have salt prints in mind, and instead use an intensifier on those negatives that need it. I mostly use chromium intensification as it's very effective and very clean (no artifacts or fog or emulsion damage), but permanganate can also be used.

 

[retina_restoration]

HP5+ has too much base density to make great salt prints from. FP{4+ is vastly superior.
I expose FP4+ at 125 ASA and develop for 10-12 minutes in double strength PMK, and this produces ideal negatives for the alt processes that require extra high value density.
You can still find a copy of Ellie Young's manual on salt printing and toning online, it has a chapter that goes into great detail how to make the perfect salt print negative.

 

[Lemmythink]

By the sounds of it, ChatGPT is throwing you for a loop. Ignore it; the subject is too niche for it to produce usable results.

As to your to-be-develooed film: do you know what film each roll or sheet is? General advice is to overdevelop by about 100% for salt prints, if you're using a normal non-staining developer. A staining developer (like pyrocat) will require less overdevelopment as the pyro stain will add a significant amount of UV density.

Personally I don't overdevelop my film when I have salt prints in mind, and instead use an intensifier on those negatives that need it. I mostly use chromium intensification as it's very effective and very clean (no artifacts or fog or emulsion damage), but permanganate can also be used.

Thanks. For the rolls they have the emulsion printed on the roll. For the sheets, maybe not. Both the Foma have the same notches. I tried to separate the sheets into different boxes and sides of card inside the boxes and for different developments, maybe exposures, but been ill and that was a while ago and I've forgoten what I did.
Thank you for the chromium lead and the UV-stain density which sounds intresting to look into.

 

[Lemmythink]

HP5+ has too much base density to make great salt prints from. FP{4+ is vastly superior.
I expose FP4+ at 125 ASA and develop for 10-12 minutes in double strength PMK, and this produces ideal negatives for the alt processes that require extra high value density.
You can still find a copy of Ellie Young's manual on salt printing and toning online, it has a chapter that goes into great detail how to make the perfect salt print negative.

That's good news for most my film which was box speed. Not so good for the film shot subsequently with ChatGTP advice +1 stop exposure. I was thinking pushing would give the best range of tones (higher contrast) but Chat was adamant a 'thick overdeveloped' negative was best (referencing your speed).

Your link doesn't work right now (you happen to know of an alternative?) but it's a lead when I gype in the basics and her name. I got the Christina Z Anderson book...then found out it was all about digital.
So far nobody is using paper dev. Noted.

Can I add in I have a box of PanF sheet film on order. Likelyhood is I'll burn through my box of FP4, mainly due to mistakes. Is PanF a good candidate for salt prints too or would you stick to the Fomas (assuming it's OK as postal service left it at the top of a bin on a very hot sunny day)

 

[koraks]

Yeah, the Foma films are notched identically. It's a pity because Foma 100 needs totally different development from 400, so you'll just have too see what you get out of the tank or tray. The good thing is that since you're looking at salt printing, it's OK if you have a long tonal scale. If the negative falls short, you can intensify it.

Chat was adamant a 'thick overdeveloped' negative was best

Sort of; what you generally don't want for alt. process and certainly salted paper is a lot of base density that doesn't contribute to shadow differentiation as it just makes exposures very long. So a thick negative is not necessarily nice. Some films will do well if you overexpose them, e.g. Foma 400 will be OK if you expose at 200 as it will give you decent separation in the shadows. But if you go overboard with the overexposure, you run into compression elsewhere in the tonal range and esp. a fixed-contrast process like salt printing gives you no way to recover any of that. Halation around highlights also increases sharply on some films (esp. Foma) if you overexpose.

What matters for salt printing is that the usable tonal range of the negative is something like 2.1-2.4logD, preferably with as little as possible b+f density. A film like Foma 100 is great if you overexpose it a little (EI64 or so) and then develop the heck out of it in a clean-working developer to get the required density range.

So far nobody is using paper dev.

I mostly use ID62 for sheet film for alt. processes. ID62 is a general purpose developer; I also use it for prints.

 

[retina_restoration]

That's good news for most my film which was box speed. Not so good for the film shot subsequently with ChatGTP advice +1 stop exposure. I was thinking pushing would give the best range of tones (higher contrast) but Chat was adamant a 'thick overdeveloped' negative was best (referencing your speed).

Your link doesn't work right now (you happen to know of an alternative?) but it's a lead when I gype in the basics and her name. I got the Christina Z Anderson book...then found out it was all about digital.
So far nobody is using paper dev. Noted.

Can I add in I have a box of PanF sheet film on order. Likelyhood is I'll burn through my box of FP4, mainly due to mistakes. Is PanF a good candidate for salt prints too or would you stick to the Fomas (assuming it's OK as postal service left it at the top of a bin on a very hot sunny day)

First of all, chatGPT led you badly astray. the "advice" you got was terrible. Don't go to chatbots for this kind of technical information, as they will get it wrong at least half the time.

If you DM me I can arrange to get you a copy of the PDF I mentioned.

And yeah, it's disappointing that Christina didn't include a chapter for making in-camera negatives. Some of us — me included — loathe trying to work with digital negatives. Compared to making an in-camera negative, digital negatives are so effing complicated to master, and you have to use Epson printers, which I won't do.

 

[Lemmythink]

First of all, chatGPT led you badly astray. the "advice" you got was terrible. Don't go to chatbots for this kind of technical information, as they will get it wrong at least half the time.

If you DM me I can arrange to get you a copy of the PDF I mentioned.

And yeah, it's disappointing that Christina didn't include a chapter for making in-camera negatives. Some of us — me included — loathe trying to work with digital negatives. Compared to making an in-camera negative, digital negatives are so effing complicated to master, and you have to use Epson printers, which I won't do.

Truth is when I shoot digital , like film almost, I don't put my card in the computer. I like the process. I could save money and use empty cameras but that would be too silly even for me. I will go looking for DM things now. (EDIT private messages to fellow members will not be available until you have posted at least 20 (genuine, not filler) messages in our public forum area. so altho I have 35 messages next to my name I can't find your DM link. Maybe you could DM it to me?).

 

[MattKing]

@Lemmythink ,
Click on the member's screen name beside any of their posts.
Then amongst the information shown, click on "Start Conversation".
On Photrio, a "Conversation" is what other sites call PMs or DMs.
Some members have chosen to disable the Conversation function, so as I understand it, for some members you won't see that "Start Conversation" link.