They would if you made the prints ;)
Printable View
They would if you made the prints ;)
No, practice makes perfect. I've always told students to print, print, print. We learn by our mistakes. Got to do it!Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
They are both tough to print but you can do it.
Attachment 141640
Speed Graphic 4×5, Optar 135mm, 1/60 at f/8.
Agfa CP G+.
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min on Jobo.
Epson V700 scan, edited in PS.
A couple of questions for those experienced with the Carestream Ektascan film from zzmedical...
I developed my very first sheet of this film in trays today using Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 for 8 1/2 mins at 75F. Agitation method was: north/south/east/west for the first minute, followed by one single n/s/e/w rotation each minute thereafter; stop/fix as normal.
1. The film is blue? I think I may have read that somewhere... If printing in the darkroom, I wouldn't think this color would affect graded paper (which I haven't used in years), but would affect VC paper the way blue light does? That is, more contrast? Thinking along these same lines I also print pt/pd where this blue color may be problematic. Thoughts?
2. I have years of experience developing "normal" film with Pyrocat-HD, but this negative doesn't take on the characteristics that I'm used to seeing; it doesn't have that obvious brownish stain and it looks kind of thin when viewed via transmitted light. Sitting in the white wash tray the density looked pretty normal. Does this film not take on the look of a normal PCat stained negative? Do these negatives look obviously thinner (less dense) than a regular negative (given same development parameters)?
Thank you for any insight/guidance provided.
Best regards,
Alan
Film base is blue for Carestream Ektascan B/RA. I print as cyanotypes with these negatives or straight contact prints as if it's graded paper so I can't say about split grade printing etc.
I use 2:2:100 for 5:30 at 77 Fahrenheit, there's definitely brown stain.
1:1:100 will also yield stain with proper negative exposure in my experience. I rate it 100 speed mid day, earlier or later or tungsten/non daylight balanced lamps and the film will be slower, potentially several (1,2,3,4) stops slower.
Detail should be excellent as is tonal range---I did a 57 of a chandelier focussed on one of the filaments in the light bulb and there was a dark shadow behind a curtain. I've got a tonal range of white paper to darkest navy blue on the print. It's a great film developer combo.
I believe others use 1:100 Rodinal with great success.
Some Foma films had a blue base until recently; I never had issues re: contrast using VC papers with them or with double-sided x-ray film.
R
Thank you Fr. Mark and Ralph for your comments.
It's still very early on with my testing of this film. I will definitely play around with other dilutions and development times, and will report back here once I've settled on a combination that works for me. I also noticed when examining the dry negative that it had a very thin area of darker density all around the image area; this may be because I didn't use a large enough tray. Next trial I will use an 11x14 tray (for 8x10) and see if that resolves this issue.
For whatever it's worth, I've always used 8X10 trays for my 5X7 negatives. My grandfather taught me this in the mid 1940'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan9940
One wonders how you feel about it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene McCluney
In the search for a convenient way to treat an Xray film I tried a simple even if careful handling in development and fixing , with free film in the tray which resulted in some minor but visible scratches scattered in the sheet (17.8 x24 cm).
My set is the following:
A pyrex glass tray of internal dimensions 187 by 285 mm, and two plastic trays of about 250 by 320 mm.
I use the first for development since the developer is the more expensive and delicate liquid, while as stop and fixer I can use the larger ones.
I saw that the development liquid can be stored with minimal degradation if kept in a vessel completely filled, leaving very little air above the liquid.
The degradation seems just a problem if oxidation. The other two solution are not critical.
So I cut a piece of plexigles of 183 by 280 mm 4 mm thick, and glued along the long side four small plexiglas blocks, two per side, at a distance amog the couples of 17.5 cm, slightly lower than the width of the film (17.8 cm) to create an arch high about 1 cm.
I placed the film in this holder, as I did for smaller sizes (up to 9x12 cm) and placed the whole in water to see the behaviour.
Unfortunately when the frame was withdrawn from water the film sticked to the plastic plate on one side, due to the water surface tension, something not observed with smaller sizes.
When immersed the adherence should disappear, but I am afraid that when ilting the tray I could induce a similar effect, with consequence in the surface.
So I looked to another approach, by making four fixtures which should keep the film parallel to the plate at a distance of about 1 cm, to be possibly reduced tu use less solution.
In the next days I will try my device, at least in pure water to observe the hydrodynamic behaviour during agitation and manipulation.