Setting up a darkroom?

[Robert Glieden]

I've only scanned my negatives but am really considering adding an enlarger to my darkroom. This brings up a few questions...

First, I don't want to use selenium. Is it widely accepted that for prints to be considered archival they need to be toned? I understand that selenium can darken blacks and varies with different types of paper but really don't wanna use that stuff... I plan on using Ilford Multigrade Fiber Matte because I can find it locally. I've also heard that this paper may not benefit much from selenium anyway? I do show my work, and once in a great while sell a piece so this is of importance to me.

Second, I'm looking at an Omega D2 (on craigslist). I've read these are workhorses and good etc.... I really am doing this on a shoestring budget and probably can't afford a cold light right away. Is there a thread describing how to diffuse condensers or could you please point me in the right direction? My main concerns with getting an enlarger are scratches, dust and washing.... In that order. I haven't worked in the dark since college (only 3 years ago, but that was a classroom set-up; 35mm and rc paper).

Also, can you use multigrade paper with both cold lights and condensers? I've read threads about this but still am not quite clear on this. Oh yeah, inexpensive safe lights too?

I just want to get things right before I go spending any money,
Thanks,

Rob

[Mark Woods]

Hello Robert,

Cold lights work on multigrade paper. With dirt, dust, scratches, be careful and clean in you methodology. There are print washers that aren't expensive, and you can make your safe lights if you really want to, I use the ones my dad made for his darkroom 60 years ago, and they work fine.

Don't you digital is in. ;-) No one does the photo-chemical thing any more, so the equipment is relatively cheap. (Well, some of us do and love it dearly!) :-)

MW

[David Vickery]

So, whats wrong with selenium toners--Why wouldn't you want to use them? I think they are excellent and wouldn't want to try to print without mine.
There isn't any reason not to use a selenium toner, unless you are in the remarkably strange situation were you would have to mix up your own from dry chemicals.

Tim Rudman produced an excellent book on toning, "The Photographer's Toning book, The Definitive Guide".

The Omega D2 enlargers are some of the best that you can get, for the price and availability of parts and accessories. You can easily convert from condensers to diffusers to cold light.

You can use multi-grade paper with any type of light source that you want to use. The filtration may be different with the different sources but they will all work.

[Toyon]

Selenium in solution is quite safe if you use gloves. In fact it is an essential nutrient in small quantities. The pyro formulations are far more toxic.

[David Karp]

Selenium can make a real difference in your prints. Some developer paper combinations create a print with a greenish cast. The selenium makes that go away, and results in a beautiful print. The concentration of selenium can be very low, 1:20 for example to achieve this result. However, with Ilford papers you need a higher concentration to achieve the subtle change in color and deepening of the shadow tones associated with dilute selenium toning, more like 1:10.

Since you do not want to use selenium toner, you can enhance the archival quality of your prints (and negatives) by treating them with Sistan: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9427-Agfa-Sistan-500ml-Print-Protection-Solution

Sistan does not have an impact on the tone of the image.

I have no experience with cold lights. A great book regarding darkroom work is the late Barry Thornton's "The Edge of Darkness."

[Andrew O'Neill]

First, I don't want to use selenium. Is it widely accepted that for prints to be considered archival they need to be toned? I understand that selenium can darken blacks and varies with different types of paper but really don't wanna use that stuff... I plan on using Ilford Multigrade Fiber Matte because I can find it locally. I've also heard that this paper may not benefit much from selenium anyway? I do show my work, and once in a great while sell a piece so this is of importance to me.

Second, I'm looking at an Omega D2 (on craigslist). I've read these are workhorses and good etc.... I really am doing this on a shoestring budget and probably can't afford a cold light right away. Is there a thread describing how to diffuse condensers or could you please point me in the right direction? My main concerns with getting an enlarger are scratches, dust and washing.... In that order. I haven't worked in the dark since college (only 3 years ago, but that was a classroom set-up; 35mm and rc paper).

Also, can you use multigrade paper with both cold lights and condensers? I've read threads about this but still am not quite clear on this. Oh yeah, inexpensive safe lights too?

I've been using KRST for years just like most wet workers here. As far as it not doing wonders to Ilford matte fibre is not true. You get rid of that horrid green tinge and get blacker blacks. Make two identical prints where one gets toned and the other doesn't. You will see how much richer the toned print looks.
Of course the other is the archival benefit which is important if you want your great great great grandkids to see your work :)

My 4x5 enlarger used to be a condensor type. I took the condensor lenses out and replaced them with a piece of white glass. I now use Aristo heads for both my 4x5 and 8x10 enlargers...I had to do a lot of modifying to make it work.

Yes, you can use Ilford multigrade with both types of enlarging systems. You will have to tailor your negatives for them. Diffusor enlargers require a negative with a longer density range. My negs DR is about 1.35. If you are also scanning your negatives, you will find that thinner negatives scan better than denser negatives. This may influence your choice of systems...or you could develop two negatives, one for diffuser enlarger and one for scanning...

[Brian Ellis]

You don't say why you want to use a cold light but if you're thinking of print quality, there's no inherent advantage to a cold light head as opposed to a condenser as long as you process your negatives appropriately for whichever type you use. All that "soot and chalk" anti-condenser stuff that Ansel Adams and Fred Picker talked about has long since been debunked (though I did use and like a cold light head myself).

I switched to digital printing quite a while ago and no longer print in a darkroom but I did for many years. I used Ilford Multigrade FB for much of that time. I never saw any big difference in dMax between selenium toned and untoned prints with that paper but selenium supposedly does increase the life of the print so I used it most of the time. Its toxic nature has been overstated I think, partly because of the strong smell of Kodak RST. But that smell is actually just the ammonia component, the same stuff found in many homes. Use gloves when you're mixing and using RST and you won't have a problem.

If you're using selenium to increase dMax you should do some testing for the appropriate dilution and time. As Fred Newman demonstrated in one of his old BTZS newsletters, there is an optimum dilution and time for all papers. If you leave the print in the toning solution for too long dMax actually decreases. A reflection densitometer of course is ideal for this testing but not many people have them so an eyeball test is better than nothing.

[walter23]

First, I don't want to use selenium. Is it widely accepted that for prints to be considered archival they need to be toned? I understand that selenium can darken blacks and varies with different types of paper but really don't wanna use that stuff...

Why not selenium? Health? In small quantities its a nutrient, and there are a few selenium shampoos which are fairly safe (for treating dandruff and a few skin conditions). I worried a bit about the stuff at first but it's fairly easy to take precautions against getting it on you, and it really does make for nice deep blacks in your prints. You have to use it in ventilation; the ammonium (or some related compound - smells like ammonia anyway) in the solution is quite noxious and you don't want to be breathing it in.

A cheap safe light is fine. Just make sure it's a safe light and not just a red light bulb. Some cheapo red bulbs just don't cut out the right wavelengths. If you want to test a safelight, pull out a small square of paper and put it on a table with a quarter on top of it (in the dark of course). Then turn on your safe light and leave it there for a reasonably long time (longer than you'll typically work with paper under safe light, say 5 to 10 minutes. You can go longer if you want to be really sure.). You can go overboard here and blast it with the safelight at 5" away, but I figure it's better to just be practical and keep the safelight in its normal position (e.g. hanging from the ceiling or on the wall). Develop the paper normally and if you can see the quarter outline you've got a bad safelight.

[Oren Grad]

Is it widely accepted that for prints to be considered archival they need to be toned?

The light selenium toning done by most B&W printers who tone does not provide full protection against attack by atmospheric pollutants. It is possible to protect the image silver fully with selenium, but toning to completion with selenium produces pretty ugly results with every paper on which I've ever tried it.

Sulfide toning does a better job if protecting the image silver is the overriding goal, but in terms of health risks and darkroom logistics it's much nastier than selenium. And it does dramatically change the image appearance.

For my B&W "keepers" I generally use Sistan. Sometimes I'll also do a light to moderate selenium toning if I think the picture will benefit from it and that the extra water consumption and darkroom effort involved is justified.

[Robert Glieden]

Wow, tremendous responses. Thanks all.

[Robert Glieden]

It sounds like my worries about selenium are incorrect. I had just been told that the stuff was pretty nasty and therefore had written it off. I will definitely look into it more. Thank you for the book recommendations. I will look them up on interlibrary loan.

I'm always watching craigslist for the right stuff at the right prices. I will see coldlights from time to time on ebay as well. If/when I get this project off the ground I see it being pieced together slowly - unless of course the price for the whole kit is right. This is why I appreciate all your advice - do it right the first time...

I am now printing digitally and am pleased with the prints I'm making. In fact I just returned home with some new Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth I'm going to give a try. I just hate the upgrade game - photoshop, printers etc...

Thanks again,

Rob

[Bob Chambers]

Hi Robert,

We met at David Plowden gathering at Calumet last summer, glad to hear you are thinking about a darkroom. Omega D2 is good choice because there are so many out there plus parts on ebay etc. I print with an ancient Dll and you can't wear them out! An Omega Dichroic colorhead is a good diffuse lightsource and perfect for VC papers. Selenium diluted to working strength 1:10 used with gloves and good ventilation is worthwhile and safe

[Robert Glieden]

Bob,

Wonderful to hear from you! I have a really good ventilated space at the ready. I'll keep an eye out for that head as well.

Hope all is well,

Rob

[Nathan Potter]

Robert, you can simply slip a 6 X 6 inch section of frosted mylar into the filter slot on the D2 and you've got a diffusion head. Leave the condensers in place for even illumination. A piece of frosted glass will work nicely also. Plus you can evaluate the effect of condenser VS diffusion quite readily. You'll find a slight difference in the fine image and grain modulation between the two along with a slight loss of contrast in the case of the condenser source.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Robert Glieden]

Thanks Nate. The frosted glass seems like a quick affordable way to get started (without the cold light head) and I will probably end up trying this once I get an enlarger. I imagine I can find it easily at the local hardware store or glass shop. I appreciate you giving the dimensions.

Regards,

Rob

[CG]

It sounds like my worries about selenium are incorrect. ... There are too many people out there who will say any "chemical" is evil and to be avoided, and at least a few who think you can mess with anything with impunity. I'd say the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

It has become a sort of folk wisdom to remark that all chemicals and all synthetics are dangerous and unnatural. Broad brush declarations of that ilk tend to gain an illusion of truth, since many widely available information sources are aimed at protecting the stupid. Look long enough on the internet and you will find credible looking information that will reinforce any fear you may have.

Sure, you can get in trouble with many photo chemicals if you drink them, of if you aerosolize them and breathe them etc. A brief read of the MSDS sheets will tell you the extent of all possible dangers. A read of the properties of the constituent chemicals in Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook" will do much to bring that back to what are appropriate precautions and correct handling procedures.

For instance, liquid pre-mixed selenium toner is quite safe if you don't drink it, and don't breathe it. Don't spill it and let it dry where it can become a dust that can be dispersed in the air. Wear gloves or use tongs etc when handling it or sloshing prints in it. Clean your darkroom regularly. (Please note - Mixing selenium toner from scratch - from metallic selenium powder and the constituent chemicals - is a different task, demanding far greater precaution - if you aren't completely sure you know exactly what to do and how to protect yourself, don't do it at all.)

While almost any photo chemical can be problematic if handled stupidly, a touch of caution and common sense goes a long way to ward off danger. One important note - don't rely on outdated formularies for safety informaion - they frequently understate possible dangers and fail to warn of precautions one should take. I wouldn't solely rely on anything published earlier than the last ten years for photo chemical safety information. Much has been learned recently.

Best,

C

[Louie Powell]

Robert -

On selenium - obviously, you choices will inform your style and vice versa. Tim Rudman pretty much debunked the myth that toning in dilute selenium provided archival protection. I use selenium because I like the way it looks. Yes, there are some environmental issues with selenium, but they are easily managed. To start with, I don't drink it. The human body requires a certain amount of selenium (especially men - its good for the prostate), and roses love it. but it doesn't go well with a ham sandwich. And the solution can be reused until the amount of selenium left in solution is so small that it can be readily disposed of without causing harm.

On matte paper - I use it when I plan to hand color my prints, but otherwise I find that matte prints just don't have the glow that I'm looking for. That's purely a matter of taste - so neither of us is wrong, and neither of us is right.

On Omega D2s (and DIIs) - built like battleships, and last forever. And readily available at reasonable prices. Buy locally - they are heavy and the cost of shipping is outrageous.

On cold light - a lot has been written about the supposed advantages of cold light, including the pronouncements of the Great Expert, Fred Picker. I look to David Vestal as a person of great common sense - David did some testing that he documented in his book The Art of Black and White Printing that showed that the differences are really quite small. Another urban myth.

On variable contrast paper - that's the way to go today. There are very few single grade papers left, and the variable contrast papers are excellent. You can use variable contrast papers with cold light if that's what floats your boat.

Scratches - they are a bitch. The best solution is to not have any. Tray processing leads to scratches. I use a slosher to process negatives - that's as simple and as inexpensive as open trays, but with essentially no risk of scratching.

Dust - again, the solution is to not have any. Housecleaning, a positive pressure ventilation system, careful cleaning of the negative before printing are all good. Ultimately, learning to spot prints is still a necessity because you will never avoid all dust and scratches.

Safelights - I started out with a red bulb. I know, that's not ideal with multigrade paper, But I still did it and it worked just fine. Eventually, I bought an inexpensive safelight, and later I made a second unit using a standard 5" round safelight filter and a 2 pound coffee can (empty). You don't have to spend lots of money on safelights - look around for a photo flea market - with everyone going digital, there's a lot of darkroom stuff selling for ridiculous prices these days.

[Robert Glieden]

Thanks again all. I just finished writing on my blog - venting a little on what's been going through my head as of late on this issue. Read it if you'd like: robertglieden.blogspot dot com.

[neil poulsen]

I've used selenium toner to provide the extra archival protection that Ansel Adams described in his book, The Print. I would recommend all three books by the way, if you're getting started in B&W development. (Camera, The Negative, and The Print.) Absolutely masterful!

Selenium is a heavy metal, so I would not throw either it nor used fixer down the drain. This is especially true, if you're a professional. In Oregon, we have a place where we can take such spent chemicals and discard them for a reasonable price.

It's interesting that, while the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) is all about archivability of their photographs and negatives, they do not permit selenium toning. That doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to do, it's just kind of interesting.

Don't discount a color head along with your Omega enlarger. A lot of VC printers use color heads. I bought a D5XL with the super chromega color head for $65 as a backup. That's a great deal. But lately, a lot of people have been practically giving enlarger outfits away. Personally, I would recommend in favor of the condenser system and VC filters over cold-light. Cold-light can be inconsistent, and thereby frustrating.

I find that VC filters' half-grade distinctions are too wide. But, one can always do two consecutive half-exposures using one filter and then the next half-grade up to get the same effect as quarter-grade differences.

[Robert Glieden]

Neil,

I've read all three, but now that I'm really considering going this direction I believe they would make more sense. I've also read (and watched) Fred Picker's and Bruce Barlow's stuff and probably will find revisiting all of them will help. When I first read/watched all the previous mentions I really wished I had an enlarger to do the tests rather than a scanner - too many variables with the scanner.

As far as the head goes I don't have much of a say - unfortunately price is going to be a determining factor. I've been watching a D2 on craigslist with a condenser head and it's been there for a while so maybe the price will be softer. It doesn't come with a lens though. Glad to hear that you can make almost any head work reasonably well.

Please tell me about mounting fiber based prints. Once you get them flat can one get away with using corner holders or hinge mounting or will they always want to slightly curl? I hated dry mounting in college and currently enjoy using simple linen tape "t" mounts.

Thanks again,

Rob

[John Kasaian]

D-2 is a fine machine. Dirt cheap on Craig's and eBay. I bought mine for $40 and a good pal dug his out of a dumpster at college. Aristo codelights will work on mg paper but I haven't heard of much success with mg paper and the old Omegalites. Perhaps you can swap out the grid in the Omegalite for an Aristo?
If you do get the D-2 get one with as many of the goodies as you can. While D-2s a cheap, the attachements are often quite costly as the people who deal in them need to make a profit.

[Louie Powell]

Please tell me about mounting fiber based prints. Once you get them flat can one get away with using corner holders or hinge mounting or will they always want to slightly curl? I hated dry mounting in college and currently enjoy using simple linen tape "t" mounts.


Hinge or "T" mounting works reasonably well with four conditions:

1. The prints are flattened before they are mounted
2. The prints are overmatted such that the edges of the prints are hidden. If you can't see the edges, whatever tendency to curling that might be there won't be very visible.
3. The prints are framed under glass such that the sandwich of glass, overmatt and mount board are forced to be reasonably flat. Again, there will be some minor curling of the print, but that won't be very visible.
4. The humidity is reasonably constant. If you have wide swings of humidity, the curl will be more visible.

As to D2 parts - Midwest Photo is a good source. Not cheap, but pretty well stocked.

[Robert Glieden]

Thanks Louie. Sounds like that should work well for me. I've already been reading on the many ways to try to get 'em to lay flat...

John, if I could find one at that price I'd have one already! I've been watching for a few weeks now and most stuff around here is quite over priced. I'm either going to have to start low-balling offers or just keep on watching patiently...

Thanks,

Rob