Some Alt Printers and some 'important' ones now use DIGI Negs
BUT some should study a certain Canadian that works wonders and has posted his all film process more than once
He makes it look easy
it is not
Some Alt Printers and some 'important' ones now use DIGI Negs
BUT some should study a certain Canadian that works wonders and has posted his all film process more than once
He makes it look easy
it is not
Tin Can
I’ve done more albumen than salt printing, but my thoughts would be the same.
I don’t think you need a more dense negative. More contrast, yes, but not more overall density.
I think the density idea came from Michael A. Smith’s use of old Super XX film which had fogged. He wrote about using a 300w bulb to print through his negatives on to Azo. I have no idea what UV bulb would be an equivalent, but printing times would be significant. I’ve found my more normal density, but contrasty, negatives to print in much more reasonable times.
Last fall I went in pursuit of the same goals - to make the ideal negatives for salt printing. I studied what materials I could and found many of the same ideas repeated. That includes: use FP4, not HP5, because HP5 has a much denser film/fog base which makes printing shadow details unnecessarily difficult with salt.
I settled on using PMK as the developer at a 2:2:100 dilution to achieve the needed density (plus the Pyro stain helps a lot to create the right UV blocking for salt contrast).
I suggest you take a look at Ellie Young’s document for some excellent ideas.
I have been making salt prints for about 25 years. They do not require a "dense" negative. They require a negative with a very long scale, which means the highlights require significantly more density than do the important shadows. If the shadow densities are high, they only increase the printing time. Shadows only need to be dense enough to print the preferred detail. In other words, the shadows need appropriate exposure, and the highlights need appropriate development which is often more than whatever is considered "normal".
These requirements are best met with FP4+ which expands (increases separation between shadows and highlights) much better than do faster films like HP5+. Slower films, by their nature expand better than do fast ones. I prefer FP4+ for general use, but I also use a lot of orthochromatic films.
I’d keep it simple I start and only make it more complicated if required.
HC-110 is a good choice in a film developer for this since you have it on hand. Rodinal would also work well. Ilford PQ universal or most print developers will work very well. Then if you need more density you can try intensification.
HP5 is not the “best” for this. The best I can think of would be Kodak TXP, but Kodak sheet film is expensive. If you wanted to use an ortho film, Ilford Ortho would be a good choice, but is slower than TXP.
I wouldn’t want to use ortho-litho films in-camera (ortho, too slow, short scale and finicky) but that’s me.
You can also dup a negative to expand density range but that’s more involved and a pain.
I was keeping away from mentioning too many films, but my last backpack trip (a couple weeks ago), my 4x5 holders were loaded up with Kodak Professional Copy Film (#4125, ASA 25). Talk about contrast control! I have developed 6 and have 12 more to do...the first batch to narrow down the development for the rest. It was much sunnier than I expected (rain one night, tho), so more scene contrast than expected.
I have used it before in 4x5 and 8x10, but one never knows how it ages. The pack I used was dated 10/1999. Pleased, very little base fog, unlike the box of 8x10 I am working on. Below is a straight carbon contact print from 8x10 copy film. Scene read 9 to 12 on my Pentax spot meter, and exposed at 10. That is one stop more than I would normally give a film, and this film takes that one stop and uses it to bump up the high values. The shadows are controlled more by development. Another neg of the scene I exposed at 11 prints nicely in platinum and I could probably control the contrast for a silver gelatin print. So good continous tone -- but since it is ortho and does respond to light differently, it might have a slightly different look. Looks good to me.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
???? I haven't used any 4125 copy film for the past 30 yrs, and even then the box was old. Did you somehow manage to steal that from a touring King Tut tomb artifact exhibition, Vaughn? Or more likely, that nice shot you just posted actually represents the tunnel you used to raid a different Egyptian tomb.
I'd also suggest dektol, pyrocat hd, pyrocat hdc, pmk pyro, etc.. For the pyro developers, discard the develop when it's stop bath time (no second dip). The staining developers add density proportional to the silver, so a basic darkroom contact print will not see the additional density, but a UV based contact print will be greatly affected.
Hi Drew, I think you quantified the challenge at hand very well. It is sort of ironic that we have such a struggle to create the dense and contrasty negatives that were commonplace during the periods using modern panchromatic films when these printing processes were in their prime. I am starting to get the feeling that FP4 in HC110 may be a good path to pursue. I was hopeful I could use what I have on hand (HP5 and HC110), and I am going to at least test this to see what happens. If I can't get there with what I have, then I will explore other options like FP4, etc.
Thanks
Larry
Bookmarks