"1940s look" on B/W enlargement

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

snip
You could also try developing your film in dilute paper developer. I
started
out with Kodak "Tri-Chem-Packs" which included Dektol, a stop bath and
fixer.
Dektol is a paper developer, but it was in this case used for film.

Geoff.
--

As some "old timers" (sorry, I remember using TriChem paks!) may know, using
Dektol for film is an old newspaper photographer's trick. Developement time
is in the 3-4 minute range, and grain is in the golf ball to basketball
size range. Contrast will usually be higher. The developement speed and
increased contrast were desirable for older newspaper halftones, and the
increased grain was a don't care.

It's an interesting look-- every beginner should try it, just to see the
effect, and then save it for the proper subject.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:12:03 -0400, Adam
wrote:

I know nothing about toners yet... I assume those are after the fixer.
I don't even know if the college photo lab has facilities and
ingredients for mixing one's own. Remember, my darkroom experience is
only a matter of weeks and we are still doing things "by the book."



March 14, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

You're in a temporarily awkward position many
here in rec.photo.darkroom would envy!

I'd suggest you keep a notebook of all your
photo activities, so mistakes can be made to
pay for themselves. Also keep many of your
'failed' prints, because they can become
useful for experiments and first tries later.
Prints you might discard because they are too
dark are very good for playing around with
bleaching and redeveloping.

The potassium ferricyanide bleach being
discussed here is very easy to prepare. You
could easily get a small amount of
ferricyanide even if the school lab does not
have any. I suppose schools might be
squeamish about anything that even might be
imagined dangerous, so a substance with the
word 'cyanide' in it might be non grata.

However, the facts about potassium
ferricyanide are well known; it is not a
particularly dangerous substance, and will
not release cyanide in any form under any
conditions likely to exist in a normal
workplace or home. (It requires exposure to
strong acid or high heat, much higher than a
usual home oven, to release cyanide.)

It's easy to learn the pertinent facts about
any and all substances used in the darkroom.
Fundamental lab safety procedures are simple
and easy to learn. A normal, non-specialized
personal darkroom can be much safer than a
usual kitchen. In fact, in the darkroom it is
possible to work with close to absolute
non-contact with any chemicals. I work with
the single-tray method for making prints, and
I find I can come very close to not even
getting my hands wet with tap water.

Chemical safety issues are easy to solve by
knowing the substances and avoiding dangerous
ones unless a specific (knowledgeable!)
decision to use one is made, and by
eliminating or limiting bodily contact with
even those safe substances.

When I was in school I failed to form any
long-term relationships with instructors or
institutions. If you're in a photo school or
university situation, you might have a very
long term source of hard to find chemicals,
valuable knowledge connections, mentors, and
job search assistance in the future.

My one big piece of unsolicited advice: keep
a detailed log of everything. Chemicals,
camera exposures, film experiences, print
experiences, people you meet and what they
might have to offer you. If that seems too
selfish, do it anyway and just make sure you
help out some new photog down the road.

Having too much stuff in your log will not
bother you in thirty years; too little and
you'll chuck it.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
I'm sorry I can't remember how to remove and replace it without damaging
anything, maybe someone else can, but you can take the lens off of
the C-3 and use it as an enlarging lens. It's not as good as a lens
designed to be used for enlarging but it works and may give you more
of the results you seek.

Thanks, Geoff. I know how to take the lens off (several people have
posted the owner's manual online), but think that, for now, I'd better
stick to the standard enlarger lens.

As for using Tri-X at ASA (let's get into the terms of the period) 100,
I'm not sure it will do what you expect. You could try films that are similar
in design to period films

How much has Tri-X changed since it was introduced? That was in the
1950s, wasn't it? My 1952 "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" lists it
under "sheet film" but not "roll film."

You could also try developing your film in dilute paper developer. I started
out with Kodak "Tri-Chem-Packs" which included Dektol, a stop bath and fixer.
Dektol is a paper developer, but it was in this case used for film.

Thanks very much for all your suggestions, but I'm still a newbie at all
this darkroom stuff, and a lot of what you're suggesting sounds beyond
my capabilities at the moment. I'm not (yet) seriously into duplicating
the "1940s look," just wondering what I can do to print one
already-developed negative.

Adam

Ken Hart wrote:
As some "old timers" (sorry, I remember using TriChem paks!) may know, using
Dektol for film is an old newspaper photographer's trick. Development time
is in the 3-4 minute range, and grain is in the golf ball to basketball
size range. Contrast will usually be higher. The development speed and
increased contrast were desirable for older newspaper halftones, and the
increased grain was a don't care.

It's an interesting look-- every beginner should try it, just to see the
effect, and then save it for the proper subject.

Thanks, Ken! That sounds very interesting. Later on in the semester,
when I have a roll of film that I'm willing to risk, I may try that.
The college photo lab uses Sprint Standard film developer and Sprint
Paper developer. How would I figure out the appropriate development time?

Adam

Lloyd Erlick wrote:
I don't even know if the college photo lab has facilities and
ingredients for mixing one's own. Remember, my darkroom experience is
only a matter of weeks and we are still doing things "by the book."

You're in a temporarily awkward position many
here in rec.photo.darkroom would envy!

Thanks, Lloyd! I guess that right now, for the most part, I ought to
learn how to do things well the "standard" way, rather than
experimenting with techniques for special purposes. It took me a while
to realize that I'd been "spoiled" by those machines that automatically
adjust the exposure for each print, as my first few rolls had negative
densities all over the place.

I'd suggest you keep a notebook of all your
photo activities, so mistakes can be made to
pay for themselves.

I just recently learned the "trick" of writing exposure info in pencil
on the back of each enlargement. (Somehow our instructor forgot to tell
us about that!) I have a small notebook in my camera bag, to keep track
of where and when photos were taken.

Also keep many of your
'failed' prints, because they can become
useful for experiments and first tries later.

I've been keeping the ones that are too dark. Several times I've
developed the "scrap" sheet of paper used for focusing, and gotten a
solid black print, which I didn't keep.

It's easy to learn the pertinent facts about
any and all substances used in the darkroom.
Fundamental lab safety procedures are simple
and easy to learn.

Our instructor hasn't said much about that. I think he keeps forgetting
that we are beginners and don't know things he'd consider "obvious."

When I was in school I failed to form any
long-term relationships with instructors or
institutions. If you're in a photo school or
university situation, you might have a very
long term source of hard to find chemicals,
valuable knowledge connections, mentors, and
job search assistance in the future.

This is just a community college (state-supported, two year) and the
number of photography classes is relatively small. And I'm not going
for a career or a degree in photography, just taking one course a
semester in whatever interests me.

My one big piece of unsolicited advice: keep
a detailed log of everything. Chemicals,
camera exposures, film experiences, print
experiences, people you meet and what they
might have to offer you. If that seems too
selfish, do it anyway and just make sure you
help out some new photog down the road.

So far I've just been keeping a record of where and when photos were
taken, and putting exposure info on contact sheets and enlargements. I
haven't yet figured out how so many people keep such detailed info on
each shot they make and still have time to take pictures!

Adam

David Nebenzahl wrote:
What I'd like to do is make an enlargement that somehow looks
as if it was shot (and even printed?) in the 1930s or 1940s

Adam, let me make a suggestion here. Rather than try any of the fancy,
esoteric solutions that people here have proposed (toning, etc.), why
don't you just do the following, which you can do with what you already
have: make a series of prints from your shot, using your RC paper, at
various contrasts and of varying density. (You do have access to a set
of contrast filters, don't you? If not, they're inexpensive.) For each
contrast grade, make a set of prints ranging from light to dark.

Thanks, David! That's certainly within my capabilities at this point.
We already learned about contrast filters. In fact, on the negative in
question, I tried a #2 filter and the instructor thought it was great,
then I tried a #1 filter and I thought it looked more "40s-ish" that way
but the instructor didn't like it.

Be sure to mark each print with the contrast grade and exposure data.
When they're dry, you can spread them out and see if any of them have
that "30s-40s" look you're after.

By the time Spring Break is over, I'll have enough paper to do that.
The instructor told us to buy one box of 100 sheets, but so far the
class has only met six times (out of 14 or 15) and I only have about 15
sheets left. An order from B&H is en route as I write this.

It won't cost you very much, and you'll probably learn more about
darkroom technique than you bargained for.

Thanks! It sounds like a very workable and educational idea!

Adam

Adam wrote:
How much has Tri-X changed since it was introduced? That was in the
1950s, wasn't it? My 1952 "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" lists it
under "sheet film" but not "roll film."

That's beyond the scope of this group. A few years ago Kodak closed their
factory that produced their black and white films and sold the equipment
to Lucy in China.

They modified the films they continued to make so that they could be
produced on the same equipment as color film, Kodak claimed there
was no difference except that the developing time was slightly different.

If you ask on any group that discusses Tri-X you will get answers that
range from "no change at all, including development" to "it's a
completely different film" and everything in between.

You might want to collect opinions, but since it's a moot point (there
is no old Tri-X except in private collections) you can just assume
what you get is it and use it as it comes.

Note that there were two films sold as Tri-X and they were (are)
slightly different. One in 35mm and 120, and the other Tri-X Pan Professional
in 120, 220 and sheet film.

Thanks very much for all your suggestions, but I'm still a newbie at all
this darkroom stuff, and a lot of what you're suggesting sounds beyond
my capabilities at the moment. I'm not (yet) seriously into duplicating
the "1940s look," just wondering what I can do to print one
already-developed negative.

I think you still need to define the "1940's look". The problem is that
for every shortcoming that people have mentioned, you can find someone who
did it better. Even before multiple grades of contrast paper where
available, people adjusted their results with exposure and development
changes.

I have often seen the claim that RC paper, invented in the 1970s changed
the way prints look, but I remember glossy prints I made in the 1960's
that had the same surface and similar brightness if they were dryed
properly. RC made it easier and more common.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

Adam wrote:
By the time Spring Break is over, I'll have enough paper to do that.
The instructor told us to buy one box of 100 sheets, but so far the
class has only met six times (out of 14 or 15) and I only have about 15
sheets left. An order from B&H is en route as I write this.

B&H is a good place to order from, but you should look at Freestyle in L.A.
They have a much wider selection of film, paper and chemicals.

You could email them and tell them what you are looking for and ask for
product recemendations.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:54:11 -0400, Adam
wrote:

I just recently learned the "trick" of writing exposure info in pencil
on the back of each enlargement. (Somehow our instructor forgot to tell
us about that!) I have a small notebook in my camera bag, to keep track
of where and when photos were taken.


March 15, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

That method necessitates flipping the print
over on a surface, which just invites crud.

I prefer to work with a numbering system so
each exposure on film has a serial number,
and each print has a number derived from
that. Each print gets a tiny number written
at the outermost edge when it's under the
enlrger, so I can make lengthy notes to my
heart's content in a notebook (with pages
numbered ... you get the idea ...).

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:54:11 -0400, Adam
wrote:

haven't yet figured out how so many people keep such detailed info on
each shot they make and still have time to take pictures!



March 15, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

Well, it's mostly because many rolls are used
for a given session. So the details are very
similar for many exposures.

Street photographing under random light over
long periods on a single roll of film --
well, I have years of that from the seventies
with no notes and there are things I'd love
to know ... it's a good thing the film comes
with edge markings.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--