|
Post by andys93integra on Feb 10, 2012 21:33:59 GMT -5
Hello all, I spent about three hours in the darkroom today printing a variety of things. All prints made on Ilford Multigrade IV RC paper, at f/11 and 10-12 seconds, with a 2 filter. Print sizes are 6x9 on 8x10 paper. Don't mind the lines on the scans, these are from the scanner on my printer, not ideal for scanning, but good enough. Here are the results. andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p919243084And a few questions. 1. I was printing 35mm for the few few prints then I thought I might try a 120 print. When I put the negative in the holder and projected it for focusing it had a strong vignette, basically it was a circle, forcing me to crop it really tight. The print did not turn out well anyway, it seems out of focus, even though I know it is sharp on the negative, and made sure it was in sharp focus in the enlarger. Suggestions as to why the strong vignette was happening? 2. Does anybody have any tricks or tips for printing? Anything from test strips, contact sheets, to the actual print. Andy
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 11, 2012 1:09:26 GMT -5
Is your enlarger for 35mm only?
Could you not see the circular image when you were focusing on the baseboard?
What focal length lens were you using? I suspect this may be the problem.
I presume you used a proper negative carrier for 120 film. Was it a glass sandwich or glassless?
Out of focus. Could the negative have popped due to heat from the enlarger bulb?
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Feb 11, 2012 2:13:52 GMT -5
The enlargers we have are the Bessler 23C III, focal length I will have to find out, and the carriers are the round glassless metal sandwich kind. So basically the lens was not covering the entire negative? I guess that makes sense why it would do that.
Andy
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 11, 2012 6:57:47 GMT -5
If the negative fits then the enlarger itself must be okay for the size you are using. The focal length of the lens is unimportant (except for how high you need the enlarger for a given magnification). What does matter though is the coverage of the lens. Taking the example of cameras: a lens for 1/2 frame or APS-c sensors won't cover a 35mm negative. There will be vignetting. Similarly a 35mm (camera) lens won't do for 6x6, and so on....
I don't know if there is any way of discerning coverage just by looking at the lens. I think it's just a case that if you see vignetting the coverage isn't good enough.
Assuming no automation at all:
In terms of test strips: exposure depends on several factors - paper speed, f-stop, density of the negative etc. but perhaps most of all on magnification. Light falls off rapidly with distance. With a test strip you can find out roughly what time frame will be about right. Find a negative that has reasonably even spread of tones over its full size. Then use the doubling-up technique: move the strip along so that each go gets half the exposure of the previous one e.g. 2,4,8,16,32,64 seconds. Of course you are going in reverse so the first is done for 32 seconds, then move up for 16 seconds and so on down (mathematicians amongst you might realise that this isn't quite exact, but it's certainly near enough). You might hit on the exact exposure straight off, but you might have to extend the range up or down. Also you might need to a second test strip, if one is a bit too dark and the next band down too light - on the other hand an educated guess is normally possible.
Exposures in the low seconds are difficult to do accurately manually. Each doubling up is effectively a stop. So a two second exposure inaccurate by 1 second is 1/2 stop wrong. A 60 second second exposure out by 1/2 second is neither here nor there.
More later.
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Feb 11, 2012 11:49:24 GMT -5
The Bessler 23CIII can hold up to 6x9 negatives. There must be a way to adjust the lens relative to the film plane for more or less coverage on the negative.
My test strips so far have been (as we were told to start out with) f/11 and two seconds, with a folder or note book sliding to reveal more at each interval. And not that I should rely this all the time, but it seems pretty constant at around f/11 and 10-12 seconds, but things can always change.
Not sure if I could go much longer times with the ilford paper as the lenses only stop down to f/16, and f/11 at around 16-18 seconds on test strips turn out pretty dang black.
Andy
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 11, 2012 12:38:40 GMT -5
Andy,
The whole lens issue get more complicated the more you try to think about it. Taking a camera: what we focus on is in front of the lens: the back focus is fixed (if focus to infinity is to be maintained). Enlarger lenses are usually working back to front, as it were. Certainly enlarging lenses will normally cover medium format without problem. However if there is vignetting I can't see what else would cause it other than the lens. Camera lenses, even designed for a format, often show some vignetting. Putting a filter or something like that on will worsen it. Just a thought - have you tried turning the lens holding plate round the other way. I don't know your enlarger, but many had a dished lens plate - sometimes you had to turn it round for certain situations.
As regards exposure times: I don't know what has happened here. Two seconds is too fast to my way of thinking. I've no doubt that the 'bulbs' in a modern enlarger are much brighter than we used years ago, but altering the f-stop would sort that out. Presumably the paper is faster too. Perhaps the developer needs to be a lower concentration. You can't burn and dodge too much if you have only 12 seconds to play with. Or perhaps it almost a print rather than an enlargement and that's why the exposure is relatively short.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 11, 2012 15:11:52 GMT -5
Andy, "21. Which focal length enlarging lens should I choose for my format?
There is no set focal length that works for a specific format -- a range of focal length lenses are usually suited to a format. For 35mm negatives, try a Componon-S 50 or an Apo-Componon 40. Medium format negatives work well in the range of 60 to 100mm lenses, depending on the specific negative size. 4x5 negatives require nothing shorter than a 135mm lens, although 150mm is the "standard" size. 8x10 shooters would do well with the Componon-S 240 or the G-Componon 300 or 360."If you reverse the lens in your enlarger you will not be able to adjust the aperture. The following pictures are of a dished lens plate that Dave described. They are for my Durst M605 enlarger. They may be mounted with the concave or convex side up but the lens must be in the side facing the baseboard or one cannot adjust the aperture. I always used a 50mm for 35 mm film and a 75mm for 6x6 or 120 film as Durst recommended. I was never curious enough to try switching them. Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 19:10:15 GMT -5
I had a 23c at one time. I believe it has a glass condenser in a tray above the lens. For 120 film you normally have to change to a longer focal length lens. The one you use for 35mm to gonna blow 120 up too much and it won't be illuminated evenly. And when you change lens you also have to move the condenser up or down to make the lighting on the negative even. Otherwise it will vignette.
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Feb 17, 2012 14:23:47 GMT -5
So I was in the Darkroom yesterday for a while and have the medium format figured out. Turns out there are two dedicated enlargers for medium format, out of the 11 enlargers we have, and they are fitted with 80mm lenses. The one I was using was not set up for medium format... Here is my first medium format print, of a 32 ford pickup with a real Ardun over head valve conversion for the flat head Ford V8. Ilford Multi grade RC paper, 7"x7" on 8x10 paper, 18 seconds at f8 with a 2 contrast filter. Yay 200th post! Andy
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on Feb 17, 2012 18:49:31 GMT -5
Really nice shot of a rare old hotrodding item. In all my years of messing around with hot rods and muscle cars, I never saw one. The closest I ever got to one was "somebody knew someone who had seen one." NICE! Thanks for posting.
|
|
photax
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,915
|
Post by photax on Feb 18, 2012 5:25:57 GMT -5
Andy,
What a brillant picture !
MIK
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 18, 2012 9:51:03 GMT -5
Super printing job, Andy. Five stars out of five. ☆☆☆☆☆
18 seconds doesn't leave very much time for manipulation and it makes correct exposure time more critical.
But you got it spot on so if it ain't broken don't fix it.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 20, 2012 4:54:59 GMT -5
Another way to get longer processing times is to dilute the developer a bit more, but as Mickey says.....
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 20, 2012 9:34:28 GMT -5
Yep ... great picture !!! Contrast and tonality ... brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Mar 9, 2012 21:06:06 GMT -5
Here are some more prints I have been making in the darkroom, some for the assignments but most for honing my skills and making some fun prints. andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p919243084/hd7d9b68#hd7d9b68Starting at picture number 14 are the most recent prints. Number 14 is actually a contact sheet made from a roll of Fuji Provia 100F positive film, I made a contact sheet and then flipped it over and placed it on to another piece of paper and made a positive again, images are reversed but, the tones are correct (just not in color). _____________________________________________________________________ I am not sure but I think my Nikon FM has a light leak, some of the frames are fine and some of them have a big burn on the lower right side that travels up the frame. Can be seen here on a contact sheet: I shot this roll about a year ago, which was one of the first rolls of film I shot with the FM, so you can excuse the crappy shots at the beginning. andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p919243084/h36ebeec9#h34befd5bHere is a contact sheet I made, shot with the FM, and all of the frames are fine. andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p919243084/h3c2064e8#h3c2064e8I stopped shooting with the FM and started shooting with my Nikon F instead with no leaks at all. And I have been shooting with my new (old) lens I got a few weeks ago, 50mm f/1.4, which performs nicely. Andy
|
|