Gum Halls Gap

Bazz8
Posts: 111
Joined: 21 Mar 2015, 17:20
Contact:

Gum Halls Gap

Postby Bazz8 » 20 Jan 2018, 16:06

2018-01-18-0001.jpg

x-ray film Minn-R 8x10
Camera Kodak 2D GClaren 270mm lens f9
Exposure 1.6 sec F16
print Fomobron III Gd 2
2018-01-18-0002.jpg

GD4

User avatar
Maris
Posts: 562
Joined: 27 Jul 2012, 16:02
Location: Noosa

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Maris » 21 Jan 2018, 10:59

Bravo Bazz8, well seen. Australia has, I reckon, the best "noble" trees and to take this gnarled giant backed by a row of rather characterless saplings is to make the visual point very nicely.

Is the Minn-R X-ray film from Carestream's mammography range? This stuff is supposed to be high contrast but it looks like you have tamed this feature (fault?) quite effectively. How done?

Bazz8
Posts: 111
Joined: 21 Mar 2015, 17:20
Contact:

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Bazz8 » 21 Jan 2018, 16:57

I checked the package Maris and it does have Carestream on the package
I traded some colour 5x4 film for 2x100 sheets of 24x30cm
tried a couple of sheets, the film was stuck together and took quite a effort to get 1 sheet away from the other :shock:
I am now lifting on corner and sliding my hand in between to prise them apart. Upon reflection it does seem to be getting easier so perhaps in the travel from South Vietnam it got hot at some stage.
Being single sided with a set of notches not much different to load than 5x4.
Exposure I have been using the BTZS system which is set up on my phone, my first time at producing some desitometry curves whith the assistance of Steve Nicholls who has mentored me for a few years now.
I started developing with Rodinall 1:100 which many x-ray shooter use it produces thin negs which do not print well,I tried this profile with the developer LC29 what a difference 1:14.5 denser negs and very easy contact prints which is what I scan.
Processing has changed as I was using trays 8x10 with sheet of glass bottom of the tray, without this you get 3 parralel dence points in the neg :shock:
I shot 100 sheets plus to sort this issue, the second more serious issue was slight dark area on the neg,my interpretation was lightleak which has resulted in the most light proofed Kodak 2 D in history LOL
I have made some dip and dunk tanks out of a mop bucket as i considered the agitation was to vigerous 15 sec every minute lift tray up and lower over the 15 sec period.
I then tried water bath the neg for 1 minute and then putting the neg in the developer due to the dence spot on the neg, I blamed this on the condenser on the D659 mini laboritar I was using to contact print, this took 1 year to sort and reject as the issue.
My new developing setup is
water bath 2 minutes
Dev LC29 1:14 60 sec: VIP No longer continual agitation 5-6 min dev 15 sec each minute consists of 3 lifts very gently say 15mm and place back down
sit for 5 sec each time. the results have become so much better.
stop 30 sec
fix 60 sec
I have watched the almost peerless examples of x-ray prints I consider a lot of them as false presentation with cleanup in LR or PS
always with the disclaimer "Oh this is how I would print them in the darkroom!" I bow to there skill but really :shock: :shock: :shock:
Oh. the other issue with my restored Kodak 2D the film holder is easily pulled away from the back to produce light leaks galore
my fix a strip of velcro which I secure the DD in place and use the spotlight brand there is another called hook and loop self adhesive strips.
since using these I have had no light leaks.
A bit long but without the pitfalls being revealed I may save someone the trouble I have had.
Thank for your kind words Maris

Bazz 8

User avatar
Maris
Posts: 562
Joined: 27 Jul 2012, 16:02
Location: Noosa

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Maris » 23 Jan 2018, 13:50

What a tortured narrative! Everything was against you: film, camera, development but you've finally got X-ray film to go where it doesn't want to go and deliver some elegant results along the way. If I count correctly you've got a hundred sheets left, more than enough for a major body of work. Please post.

Bazz8
Posts: 111
Joined: 21 Mar 2015, 17:20
Contact:

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Bazz8 » 24 Jan 2018, 06:35

Will do Maris Just happy to get the result I am after :D

Mick Fagan
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Sep 2015, 21:20
Location: Melbourne

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Mick Fagan » 24 Jan 2018, 18:55

Quite interesting, I’ve looked at this a few times. I agree with Maris, taming a lithographic film for continuous tone prints is not that easy; as you no doubt agree.

In another life, I worked in a graphic arts trade house; we had litho film coming out of our ears. Quite often for kicks we would hit a darkroom and cut up some spare litho sheet or sometimes roll film and take portraits or whatever with idle 4x5” and 8x10” cameras.

One of the things we learnt, was to pre-flash the film, actually we flashed it under an enlarger. This lowered the contrast and was a requirement as the only film developer we had was replenished D76 from our continuous film processor. We used to pull the hose outlet for the developer bath and let it drain into a container then use that to tray develop under safelight.

One of the tricks we used, to get better prints, was a version of split grade printing. Our B&W darkroom had a suite of Beseler enlargers fitted with Ilford Multi-grade heads, they were a dream to use; when they were working.

Essentially we would do a quick print at Grade 00, then do the same with Grade 5. Essentially, part of the exposure was done at grade 00, then as the exposure was underway we would punch in Grade 5 and the colour of the light would seamlessly change to the harder grade. The harder grade would only be allowed on areas requiring more contrast as we placed a mask on the paper. Actually the mask was taped onto the glass that was over the paper at the right time the mask was flipped, like turning a page in a book; we used vacuum easels.

Taking your two prints, I would suggest most people would like a single print somewhere between the low contrast more detail and the high contrast lower detail. You could expose at grade 00 overall, then possibly switch to Grade 5 using a mask to only expose the main tree trunk and limbs and gain the nice contrast on that part of the image.

The fact that the mask was a loose fit and was on top of 6mm (or so) glass, allowed for a nice spread. We weren’t after masterpieces, but we were fairly good at it and it was fun and as we used film cut-offs, management didn’t mind.

You may not be a fan of multi-grade paper, but I think that this is one area that it can often do a very nice job.

By the way, congratulations on getting where you are and the prints themselves, they are quite good.

Mick.

Bazz8
Posts: 111
Joined: 21 Mar 2015, 17:20
Contact:

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Bazz8 » 25 Jan 2018, 14:43

Interesting Mick
i use a Ilford multi grade head with the RHDesign Anaylser 500
it does split grade with green and blue light
I like th idea of masking on the glass contact print surface another thing to try
I will try gd3 this weekend to see the difference.
Thanks

Mick Fagan
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Sep 2015, 21:20
Location: Melbourne

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Mick Fagan » 26 Jan 2018, 05:50

I remembered a bit more detail.

Strictly speaking, with split tone printing, one shouldn't need a mask, but we found we were getting a bit of density in the highlights and to make things a bit more crisp, a mask helped.

We were getting flat looking highlights and even though you shouldn't be getting more image density using one grade and then the other (Split-tone printing) with litho film we found that highlights, which had detail in places, were going grey(ish) or flat(ish). A mask for part of the time gave the prints a lift.

It's at least 30 years ago, so the memory is taking a bit to recall.

Mick.

Bazz8
Posts: 111
Joined: 21 Mar 2015, 17:20
Contact:

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Bazz8 » 27 Jan 2018, 17:17

Did a couple of follow up prints along with the flaws in developing the neg as describedin a earlier post.
2018-01-27-0001.jpg

AGFA Fibre paper Matt
Fomobron Gloss print( note the over development areas 2nd print slightly better
Historical structure Lillimure Victoria
2018-01-27-0003.jpg

2018-01-27-0005.jpg

Snake valley Victoria 'Holy trinity Church'
2018-01-27-0006.jpg
Fomabron print

This neg was developed the same time as the others 2 differences
The house was shot at midday bright sun in October
the Church 8 am into the sun
So very much a suck it and see at times.

Mick Fagan
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Sep 2015, 21:20
Location: Melbourne

Re: Gum Halls Gap

Postby Mick Fagan » 28 Jan 2018, 09:59

I think your third tree picture is getting quite close to what is possible with X-Ray film. This film uses as standard, a very high pH developer of around pH 12.

High alkaline developers give rapid development, along with greater swelling of the gelatine. (1)

To put this into perspective, D76 is pH 8.5 while HC110 is pH 8.9. As LC29 is an Ilford developer that, within reason, mimics HC110. I assumed it probably had a similar pH value, but is, according to an Ilford data sheet, pH 9.4.

I wondered if using a tropical developer, or at least adding a specific component, could aid you by hardening the emulsion(s)?

In another different life, I manufactured rubber stamps :o

One of the things I had issues with in the early days was eliminating scratches on the lithographic film emulsion caused by multiple handling and cutting of the sheet film, as well as hand processing in trays/dishes.

The substance usually added to developers to reduce gelatine swelling, is sodium sulphate (Glauber salt). It is essential it should be present in high concentration. Most normal developers may be made suitable for tropical processing by the addition of 105 gms of sodium sulphate to each 1000ml of the working solution. (2)

I have about 4kg left of sodium sulphate sitting in my darkroom that hasn't been used too much since I switched to Laser engraving rubber stamps in 1997. I bought it in 10kg containers... You are welcome to grab a few hundred gms of this to have a go if you wish. Alternatively, adding some Glauber salts may be easier for you to obtain and try?

(1) Tropical developers page 227 Developing by Jacobson and Jacobson. Eighteenth edition revised.

(2) Tropical developers page 229 Developing by Jacobson and Jacobson. Eighteenth edition revised.

Mick.


Return to “Things”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest