printing has resumed

Today I tried what I’d been thinking about doing for a few weeks. I put a safe-light on my kitchen ceiling and replaced the light filter with 60% diffusion plastic from TAP, then sandwiched multicontrast filters with another piece of the diffusion plastic  on top, and hinged and fastened it all with gaffer’s tape. My new light source is even across the negatives like my enlarger never was. One more problem solved. I printed 2 negatives from sunday. There is clearly something problematic with the longer lens shot, but I don’t know what it is yet. It looks like it could be uneven development, or a light leak.

8 Responses to printing has resumed

  1. Jim Allison says:

    Time for the lecture circuit when you get this really dialed. Fascinating what all you have learned by investigation and research.

  2. Ron Cowie says:

    That lower neg is the result of uneven development. Actually, it might be exhaustion. In any case, I have experienced the same thing.
    Lovely work.

    • darren says:

      good to know, thanks Ron. It’s not easy getting that sheet into the developer quickly. I wasn’t sure if that was a light leak or???

  3. Brian says:

    Darren — I have no experience with this kind of photography, but if you’re shooting on x-ray film isn’t there an issue regarding the bellows? The bellows are light proof, but are they x-ray proof? That might explain some of the unevenness — x-rays are highly energetic and require more of a barrier.

    I’m sure you’ve already thought of this but I didn’t see it addressed in your blog so I wanted to ask.
    Thanks!
    Brian

    • darren says:

      Brian,
      As I understand it, x-rays are used to charge a fluorescent screen which then emits the light that the film is exposed to. X-ray film is just a type of orthochromatic film with no special sensitivity otherwise(as far as I know). The unevenness is more likely to uneven development or developer exhaustion as Ron suggested previously. That actually makes sense to me, but I can certainly understand your theory.

  4. Darren, Love this camera idea and congratulations on building it! I have some experience with large sheet development as I used to shoot 20×24″ pinhole images using paper mounted in a large trashcan (see “Catoctin Cascade” in the Pinhole gallery on my website). I did my processing in large deep trays with constant agitation and lots of developer. But that is for paper and it was a pain so I started doing 8×10 film instead in an old studio camera. Since you are doing film I suggest trying a variation on the JOBO/BTZS idea using a piece of plastic tubing or pipe. A 6″ x 40″ piece of perforated/straight drain pipe, open-ended, would hold the film rolled across the 14″ side and you could do the dip and dunk in a deep tank or tray. Again, you are back to building stuff but isn’t that what the fun part is? A larger amount of developer would avoid the exhaustion issue. Best, Ed Kirkpatrick

    • One more thing, I am sure your issue with the print is uneven development. Light leaks in-camera would not be so regular.

    • darren says:

      Thanks Ed. I do believe that I need to be using more developer, in fact I’m sure of it. I’ve been processing all daylight photos in Rodinal 1:200 (50ml+10,000ml) about 2.65 gallons. I know that 10ml of Rodinal will cover 80 square inches, so 504(14×36) would be roughly 50ml of rodinal per sheet. I think the problem here is that I’m doing at least 2-3 sheets per batch when I should be doing 1. Thanks for your input, and I really like your “Catoctin Cascade” photo, especially the vertical lines of the falling water.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>