Thanks, Ned. I'll give it a try at some point.
Thanks, Ned. I'll give it a try at some point.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I use Photographer's Formulary Liquidol at 1:3 dilution, 1:30, 72F and it tames the contrast quite well. You get a very warm toned paper negative that is relatively lower in contrast than straight paper developer.Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
I hear Dektol is about the same when diluted 1:3...
Kino
We never have time to do it right, but we always seem to have time to do it again...
Thanks, Kino. Maybe I'll play with dilutions later. I just realized that Ilford makes a thinner paper than I used. That would make it easier to load into the holders. I'll also try using a 480mm lens instead of the 360. The big challenge will be getting people to sit for portraits.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
When I took the 8x10 paper negative photos of Janice, I tried some with a yellow/green filter, and some with no filter. The yellow/green filter prints scanned just fine on a cheap Canon flatbed, but the prints with no filter were too contrasty for the scanner. Today, I finally got my 8x10 film scanner operational. I 'scanned' the paper negatives made with no filter on it using transmitted light. That worked just fine, but....if I showed those images to anyone, I doubt that you'd hear from me again. No filter lead to a massive increase in skin detail and tonal variation. Terrific, perhaps, for the old man of the sea, but not so good for a pretty lady. Yeah, I suspected that would be the case. Anyway, for that format and distance to subject, f/16 on the lens is better than f/11, imo. Basically, with f/11 and focusing on eyelashes, the subject's nose gets quite blurry. I don't mind a little of that, but too much is distracting for me. F/16 was significantly better, with the tip of Janice's nose showing just a hint of softness. Next time, I'm going to give Foma 200 film a try.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Oh, this is a great tip! I'm going to try it this weekend.
Don
Pre-flashing might possibly buy you the extra stop for more DOF! It's pretty close to making the paper 1 stop faster.
It takes a bit of testing. Make test strips and choose the longest pre-flash that is still paper white after developing.
I use a variation: most paper these days has a mixture of 2 or 3 emulsions that have different spectral sensitivities. I like to pre-flash through a green filter... so that the green-sensitive part of the paper gets pre-exposure, but the blue-sensitive part still has some "lag time" before it starts to do anything. This is oversimplifying, but it's like giving the "low contrast" part of the emulsion a head start.
But again, I like what you did already!
I used Tetenal Work paper, made in the 1990, Gr.2 but I guess now it is more Gr.0-1
Slightly grey, not realy white but still usable.
No filter in use, set of ISO 6.
Lens were a 1870 made Derogy Portrait Petzval lens, 360mm f/4,5 @f/32
Exposure time 9 sec.
Scan at 1200 DPI as negativ, converted to positive by GIMP
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks