Large Print Process - Long Post! (w/pix!)

[Cor]

On bleaching with ferricynide: indeed the spot gets bbigger than you like. I have used a Idonine/methanol bleach in the past (if I rember correctly!) which bleeds less, the methanol evaporates quite fast leaving a small area bleached out. The recipe is at hoem, byt is from one of the books of Tim Rudmen, the master printing course I believe.
Best,

Cor

[John Layton]

Cor...I'd be very interested in the iodine/methanol formula. Do you have any sense of its long term stability?

[Ironage]

Love the detailed wordiness. Inspiring accomplishment John!

[John Layton]

Here is a dry mounted example of one of my earlier large prints (tucked into my newly build removable easel), but prior to my having built the easel…so the paper was taped to the wall, and un-taped (obviously!) for processing…what a complete pita and I’m so looking forward to using this easel!

At any rate…this print (slightly trimmed) measures 37x54 inches. This example is fine (looks a bit contrasty here)…except for a barely noticeable area at the bottom where I fried it with my tacking iron - so this one will be for “home display” only!



I have yet to retouch this print…and here is a closeup - showing spots and fuzzies that I’d gone over with ferricyanide as I’d described previously. The large, long fuzzy (long piece of dust on the negative prior to exposure), measures just over 3/8” x 1/16,” with the original dust line which it covers being almost as long…but a fraction as wide. So yes, anything to help minimize the amount of outward migration of retouching medium would be most welcome!

[John Layton]

Cor, in reference to the second image in my post above - a couple of more questions regarding the iodine/methanol bleach - One: does it application fit into the same step of the process (after one of the fixing baths or a first rinse prior to refining?) And two: does this formula evaporate quickly enough to allow its application to a surface which is anything but horizontal? Thanks!

[Cor]

Cor, in reference to the second image in my post above - a couple of more questions regarding the iodine/methanol bleach - One: does it application fit into the same step of the process (after one of the fixing baths or a first rinse prior to refining?) And two: does this formula evaporate quickly enough to allow its application to a surface which is anything but horizontal? Thanks!

Hi John,

The Christmas Holidays intervened (we celebrate 2 days over here in the Netherlands), I will get back to you once I am home tonight.

best,

Cor

[Tin Can]

John

This is a most useful thread, words and pics really help

I am very impressed

Thank you

[John Layton]

Thank you...I'm always hopeful that the information I share might be of some use to others...provide some insight or at least be entertaining.

Funny thing when I first started this (doing 40x60 prints) - the very silly mistakes I made while trying to get everything right...like concentrating so hard on a dodge of a particular area that when I processed the print, there appeared a silhouette of my head! Lots of "wasted" paper at first...but it does get better!

[Eric Woodbury]

Very timely post. I'm curious: what is your exposure time and f/# for the print? How does your LED light source brightness compare to whatever you had before in this regard?

I'm with ic-racer on this -- very impressive.

[John Layton]

Eric…the short answer: the Heiland is at least 4 exposure values (16x) brighter than my particular Zone-VI VC (florescent) light source. Further assessment, plus some data for the print presented above (rocks and surf photo):

Film Data: 5x7 FP4, Processed in Pyrocat HD (in glycol) 1:1:100. Pre-soak: 3min. Dev: 10min (1min initial agit, 5sec/min. thereafter) @70F.

Print Data: Lens: 180mm Companon-S. Aperture: F/16. Film Plane to Easel Plane: 72 1/8.” Green Channel Time: 20sec. Power Level: -11. Blue Channel Time: 20sec. Power Level: -16. Plus various dodges and burns.

See my original text for general print processing data.

What I cannot give you is a comparison of light sources for this print size, as I had not gotten my horizontal enlarger together until I’d been using the Heiland VC LED for awhile on my vertical (Zone VI) enlarger. But, as you can see from my data, the fact that I’d stopped the lens to F/16 and still needed to power down the Heiland (from between 1.1 and 1.6 EV’s) in order to realize exposure times which would allow for reasonably “sane” (unhurried/repeatable) dodges and burns - and this, at an FP to PP of 72” - gives an indication that this light source is indeed impressive, even when considering the relatively high light sensitivity of Ilford Classic paper.

As for vertically printing with the Zone VI (series 2) enlarger…I can do a 30x40 from a 5x7 negative, with similar data to that above (for the horizontal 40x60), because here I will use a 150mm G-Claron (wide enough to allow this size from a vertical print orientation), which is optimized optically for use at F/22 - which buys me some time.

Interestingly…the 150 G-Claron does not perform as well as the 180mm Companon-S for the 5x7 to 40x60 horizontal scenario, but for prints sized between 20x30 and 30x40, the G-Claron performs just a bit better than the Companon-S…while for printing smaller (16x20), the Companon-S once again (as it does with 40x60) outshines the G-Claron.

To compare relative exposure times (per given aperture values) realized with the Heiland vs. my original, Zone-VI VC (florescent) light setup (while printing vertically on my Zone-VI enlarger), I’d estimate (without putting my hands on data) a multiple of at least four exposure values for the earlier florescent, which would have meant “full power” green and blue channel exposures of at least 160 seconds apiece (320sec if powered down like the Heiland) for the 40x60 (horizontal) print, or more likely 80 seconds as I would have opened the lens (from f/16) to f/11. (but as I see no difference between f/11 and f/16 from my 180mm Companon-S, I’d rather go to f/16 in any case…regardless of available foot-candles, to help compensate for any focal plane inaccuracies).

Finally, and to be fair to Zone-VI (Richard Ritter, et al), I began this entry with a caveat: that I am comparing the Heiland LED VC unit to “my example” of the older Zone-VI light source - which I had purchased used, and which had, by the time I’d replaced it with the Heiland, become quite inconsistent in both its output and evenness over its measured field. The Heiland, on the other hand, has been dead-on consistent, E.V.-wise, in its output over the roughly four years that I’ve owned it, and is completely even well beyond its (5x7) field…only dropping off by 1/10th of an E.V. near the very outer edges…well beyond that which I actually utilize, and I am quite confident that this performance will remain steady and consistent for the remainder of my years on this planet.