Printable View
I just stuck with the recommended speed and it turned out ok for portraits. Although I am not using the same dev concentration as I was, at that time when I started using xray film I used the recommended concentrations of dev, what a waste! I have switched to green now and use that at iso 80, dev is about 1:180-ish
Good information Andrew. I've been afraid to cut back on developer figuring I've now got twice as much emulsion per sheet to develop. Lots of things yet to try. You got it right on the platinum, I toned re-worked it with platinum tone in Topaz and it looks quiet nice.
I took advice from Sergei who frequents the thread, he does all of his developing the same way including film. I have used the same ratio for 13x16 inch negs and found it gives me lot more time to check the neg to see were development is at in trays. In rotary I also follow Sergei to the letter and do rotary for 12 mins. You should check his site http://sergeirodionov.com/. I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, but it helped me. Anyways...glad I could help.
Thanks,
I'll re-read Sergei's advice. I've always enjoyed his work! But he does stat he only use the green sensitive film which most folks rate at 80-100, not the half speed blue sensitive I've been playing with.
I use digital negatives for carbon transfer and kallitype printing, often. My older Epson 4000, cheap Chinese ink, and QTR do a great job. I've made them from scanning in 35mm up to 8x10.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
Thanks Andrew, I'm going to have a bash at carbon transfer during winter and was not sure if the print quality would be sufficient. Makes it a lot easier enlarging a 4x5 neg rather then lugging around my 10x12 vageeswari
You're welcome, Andrew. I do most of my carbon printing during the winter here...your summer, there. I was able to squeek out a few carbons last summer as it was a cooler one than usual. Another nice thing about the digital negative is that it allows you to build in your dodge/burns, etc.
I'm back with more info. Started filling my dev tank nearly to the top and I'm getting much more consistent results with EB/RA. Much more solid results, a few artifacts or aberrations aside. I'll post more UV results later.
Hi Andrew, I see you do Kallitypes as well..I think the Kallitypes are pretty stupendous, looking at the examples through google search. They seem so intense and sharp, I have just bought some chems, but after looking at half a dozen recipes they are all so different and ambiguous. Hopefully getting my hands on a copy of "the book of alternate photographical processes"Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Attachment 164395
Attachment 164396
Here's some UV. You can tell it's UV by the contrast and depth of shadows, the faintness of the designs on the sweater, and the blotching on the skin. The blotching is the patches of melanin that connect her freckles reflecting the UV light.
When I first saw my results, I double checked the transmission curve for the B+W 403 filter I'm using, and I was quite surprised to see that I am not getting anything beyond maybe a tiny bit past 400nm in the visible. It looks so much like visible light, shadows and skin aside. The only thing that has stood out to me so far is the slightly different pattern of contrast across varying surfaces (paint, glass, metal, greenery, etc.), in the same vein -though not as stark- as IR.
Mostly what you're seeing is the upper part of UV-A (350-400nm), which is pretty close to visible light. I have a plastic lens in the mail that can transmit all the way down to UV-C (not that I could capture any, it's mostly filtered out by the ozone layer). Should just about cover 4x5.