Home printing suggestions

In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:


Anthrax! See:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...2575BC1A96E9C9
46896D6CF

Perhaps more of a problem in 1919 than today.

Now it just comes in the mail

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

"Pieter" wrote in message
...
When I went for B&W darkroom instruction, the method used
to dry prints was as follows:

RC - lay face down on a drying rack (plastic window
screen) in filtered moving warm air until dry

Fiber - lay face up aon a drying rack (plastic window
screen) in filtered moving warm air until dry
Then use a couple of sheets of clean white
matte board to sandwich 1 print at a time and press in a
dry mounting press for 30 seconds at about 150 degrees to
get the curl out. Do NOT use press on RC papers

I use stackable drying racks purchased from Porters Photo
on line. I don't have a big closet for forced air, so I
just leave the racks in the corner of my darkroom for a
while longer than required for forced warm air ( a couple
of 100 watt bulbs and a small fan with filter is enough).
I bought a dry press used via e-bay. Works fine.

You have it in reverse. RC prints are dryed face up to
prevent markings from the screen. Fiber is dried face down
to equalize the drying rate of the emulsion and support.
Since the support of RC can not absorb moisture it really
does not need drying, only the emulsion side. There really
is little or no harm done if you reverse it but the fiber
prints will not dry as flat as if dried emulsion side down.
Actually, to be really flat fiber base prints should be
flattened in a dry mounting press. I've posted the method to
this group several times. Briefly, the print is dryed out
for a couple of minutes with some release paper against the
emulsion side to prevent its getting too dry and absorptive
paper, like "kraft" paper or photo blotters, against the
support side. When the entire sandwich is allowed to cool
under a flat weight the prints will be absolutely flat and
will stay that way.
RC is easy to dry. I either hang it or if I don't want
marks I just wipe off both surfaces and lay it face up on a
couple of sheets of paper toweling.
Kodak used to recommend drying RC using infra-red light
because some action of the IR eliminated the veiling
sometimes seen in the shadows. I was never able to get an
explanation of this.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

On Jan 23, 4:22*pm, "Lawrence Akutagawa" wrote:

Drying fiber prints-

1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll.
*Tough to locate these days.
2. Second best is blotter books -


The old blotter rolls did work well. They worked well
because they were ventilated. That length of blotter paper
was sandwiched twixt a length of single face corrugated
board. Hundreds of 8x10s were nicely dried and flat.
IIRC I have mentioned the corrugated stack dryer I now
use. A special ventilation grade board is used. Apparently
it is a specific board used in conjunction with blotter
sheets and manufactured for the purpose of drying
thin sheet materials; AHH! MY PRINT PAPER
DRYER. The good old days are back.
I've substituted non-woven hydrophobic sheets for the
cotton or paper blotters of old. The corrugated stack dryer
will dry and leave flat in one operation. Less than $20 will
get you an up to 11x14, extremely compact, extremely
light weight dryer.
At Google enter, forestry suppliers . Search for,
ventilators . Or at Google search for, plant presses .
Perhaps Conservators still offer that special board.
As for the non-blotting sheet material, check your
local fabric store for, interfacing . Ordinarily some
non-woven polyester. Dan

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 1/24/2008 6:33 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in
message
.com...

On 1/24/2008 1:40 PM Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:

"G.T." wrote
At $75 I won't mind replacing the lenses if necessary.

Folks get all insistent that you need an
Apo-Ultra-Supergon lens
and then go and take pictures with a Diana or Holga.

Most any lens will make perfectly fine prints.

I second that emotion. However, seeing how cheap
enlarging lenses are on, say, that little bitty on-line
auction site these days, no reason to skimp the go
for the Rodenstock, the Nikkor, or the Componon.

I agree. While there may be some differences between
Rodenstock, Schnieder, and Nikon top of the line lenses
the differences are negligible. Even quite old lenses are
very good. For instance, a 40 year old Schneider Componon
was the best of class when it was new and is still a very
respectible lens. These are sometimes available in
like-new condition for bargain prices.

Forgive me if we've already been over this ground before,
but this seems a good time to ask you about a couple older
enlarging lenses I have that I've used with good results.
I have a couple versions of the old Kodak Projection
Anastigmat, all in excellent condition. (This is the
uncoated version of what I guess became the Ektar series,
correct?) What's your opinion of these lenses? They seem
to be perenially available on eBay in any conceivable
size, cheap.

I posted a reply to another of your posts because I
couldn't find this one after seeing it on Google Groups:-(
Anyway, I have to go by memory right now because I've
had an invasion of painters and had to box up my reference
books. They'll be back soon but not yet.
My memory is that the Projection Anastigmat lenses are
not the same as the Enlarging Ektars. I think the PA lenses
were renamed Enlarging Ektanon. I think there may have been
Projection Ektars but I'm not quite sure of that.
The Projection Anastigmat and Enlarging Ektanon lenses
are Tessar types. The 50mm and 75mm Enlarging Ektar are
Heliars of the Altman type following USP 2,279,384 These
lenses are well corrected for lateral color. The 105mm
Enlarging Ektar is a four elemement, air-spaced lens of the
Dogmar type, also well corrected for lateral color. These
three were intended for use in color printing and are very
good lenses. The Ektanon and Anastigmat series are also very
good lenses but are not as well color corrected,
particularly for lateral color, as are the Ektars.
Altman's patent was issued in 1942. The Projection
Anastgmat series all pre-date this. Some of the Ektanon and
Anastigmats may be Dogmars, the 10", f/8 (I think it is)
lens for enlarging 8x10 definitely is and is meant for color
work despite the Ektanon name.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

On 1/27/2008 1:59 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

Forgive me if we've already been over this ground before,
but this seems a good time to ask you about a couple older
enlarging lenses I have that I've used with good results.
I have a couple versions of the old Kodak Projection
Anastigmat, all in excellent condition. (This is the
uncoated version of what I guess became the Ektar series,
correct?) What's your opinion of these lenses? They seem
to be perenially available on eBay in any conceivable
size, cheap.

I posted a reply to another of your posts because I
couldn't find this one after seeing it on Google Groups:-(
Anyway, I have to go by memory right now because I've
had an invasion of painters and had to box up my reference
books. They'll be back soon but not yet.
My memory is that the Projection Anastigmat lenses are
not the same as the Enlarging Ektars. I think the PA lenses
were renamed Enlarging Ektanon. I think there may have been
Projection Ektars but I'm not quite sure of that.
The Projection Anastigmat and Enlarging Ektanon lenses
are Tessar types. The 50mm and 75mm Enlarging Ektar are
Heliars of the Altman type following USP 2,279,384 These
lenses are well corrected for lateral color. The 105mm
Enlarging Ektar is a four elemement, air-spaced lens of the
Dogmar type, also well corrected for lateral color. These
three were intended for use in color printing and are very
good lenses. The Ektanon and Anastigmat series are also very
good lenses but are not as well color corrected,
particularly for lateral color, as are the Ektars.

So I assume this means they all are plenty good enough for black &
white, correct?

I just retrieved the two that I have: a 135mm f/4.5 and a 161mm f/4.5,
both Projection Anastigmats, both of which cost me next to nothing. Are
these ones good? (The 161 came with my 5x7 Elwood, so I'm assuming it'll
cover that format.)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 1/27/2008 1:59 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in
message
.com...

Forgive me if we've already been over this ground
before, but this seems a good time to ask you about a
couple older enlarging lenses I have that I've used with
good results. I have a couple versions of the old Kodak
Projection Anastigmat, all in excellent condition. (This
is the uncoated version of what I guess became the Ektar
series, correct?) What's your opinion of these lenses?
They seem to be perenially available on eBay in any
conceivable size, cheap.

I posted a reply to another of your posts because I
couldn't find this one after seeing it on Google
Groups:-(
Anyway, I have to go by memory right now because
I've had an invasion of painters and had to box up my
reference books. They'll be back soon but not yet.
My memory is that the Projection Anastigmat lenses
are not the same as the Enlarging Ektars. I think the PA
lenses were renamed Enlarging Ektanon. I think there may
have been Projection Ektars but I'm not quite sure of
that.
The Projection Anastigmat and Enlarging Ektanon
lenses are Tessar types. The 50mm and 75mm Enlarging
Ektar are Heliars of the Altman type following USP
2,279,384 These lenses are well corrected for lateral
color. The 105mm Enlarging Ektar is a four elemement,
air-spaced lens of the Dogmar type, also well corrected
for lateral color. These three were intended for use in
color printing and are very good lenses. The Ektanon and
Anastigmat series are also very good lenses but are not
as well color corrected, particularly for lateral color,
as are the Ektars.

So I assume this means they all are plenty good enough for
black & white, correct?

I just retrieved the two that I have: a 135mm f/4.5 and a
161mm f/4.5, both Projection Anastigmats, both of which
cost me next to nothing. Are these ones good? (The 161
came with my 5x7 Elwood, so I'm assuming it'll cover that
format.)

AFAIK, these are perfectly good lenses. The lens on the
Elwood is closer to a 4x5 lens than 5x7 but will cover 5x7
at the low magnifications used. The problem will be light
fall off toward the corners, the same problem one has using
a 135mm lens for 4x5. Light fall off is proportional to the
angle of coverage required of the lens so will be less when
the lens is used for low magnification. Uniformity is better
when the lens focal length is longer but most enlargers
don't have enough column height to permit this for their
largest format. The Elwood also has a light equalizer in the
form of a sandblasted glass which has denser diffusion in
the center, this may help make the illumination uniform.
The 5x7 Elwood seems to be the next most common enlarger
to the Omega D2. Both were very widely used in schools,
newspaper darkrooms, the military, etc.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

I found following formula of Hypo Eliminator in
spanish edition of Jacobson / Mannheim "Enlarging" book :
Water - 500cc
Hydrogen Peroxide 3% solution - 125cc
Ammonia 3% solution - 100cc
Water to make 1000cc

Just wander if sombody tried it and if it has any benefits compared
to plain sodium sulfite.

Best,
Igor.
"David Nebenzahl" escribió en el mensaje de
noticias .com...
On 1/24/2008 11:13 AM G.T. spake thus:

And I absolutely need to get some Hypo Clear for fiber prints,
right?

Yep, unless you want to use (and waste) vast quantities of water and take
hours washing your prints.

By the way, you can use plain sodium sulfite, easily available, as HCA.
It's the main and most important ingrediment. You don't really need the
other stuff (EDTA, etc.) that's in commerially-available hypo-clearing
agent (or "wash aid", if you prefer, though that usage is chiefly British,
I believe).

In article ,
iga wrote:
I found following formula of Hypo Eliminator in
spanish edition of Jacobson / Mannheim "Enlarging" book :
Water - 500cc
Hydrogen Peroxide 3% solution - 125cc
Ammonia 3% solution - 100cc
Water to make 1000cc

Just wander if sombody tried it and if it has any benefits compared
to plain sodium sulfite.

Yes, that's a "Hypo Eliminater" similar to Kodak HE-1. It chemically
reacts the hypo out of the paper instead of just making the washing
process go faster. The peroxide itself will bleach the image so it is
important that it all be washed out of the paper -- but it is very
soluble so washes out quickly.

There are a number of reasons these aren't used any longer, from the
possibility of image bleaching if the paper's left in the tray too
long to the discovery that very small amounts of fixer left in the
paper actually enhance image stability -- this formula will leave
none at all.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

Thanks for information, Thor !
BTW just found this site :
http://silvergrain.org/wiki/Washing_aid

Best,
Igor.

"Thor Lancelot Simon" escribió en el mensaje de noticias
...
In article ,
iga wrote:
I found following formula of Hypo Eliminator in
spanish edition of Jacobson / Mannheim "Enlarging" book :
Water - 500cc
Hydrogen Peroxide 3% solution - 125cc
Ammonia 3% solution - 100cc
Water to make 1000cc

Just wander if sombody tried it and if it has any benefits compared
to plain sodium sulfite.

Yes, that's a "Hypo Eliminater" similar to Kodak HE-1. It chemically
reacts the hypo out of the paper instead of just making the washing
process go faster. The peroxide itself will bleach the image so it is
important that it all be washed out of the paper -- but it is very
soluble so washes out quickly.

There are a number of reasons these aren't used any longer, from the
possibility of image bleaching if the paper's left in the tray too
long to the discovery that very small amounts of fixer left in the
paper actually enhance image stability -- this formula will leave
none at all.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

"iga" wrote in message
...
I found following formula of Hypo Eliminator in
spanish edition of Jacobson / Mannheim "Enlarging" book :
Water - 500cc
Hydrogen Peroxide 3% solution - 125cc
Ammonia 3% solution - 100cc
Water to make 1000cc

Just wander if sombody tried it and if it has any benefits
compared
to plain sodium sulfite.

Best,
Igor.


Kodak Hypo Eliminator was devised in the late 1930's at
Kodak Research Labs and was intended to reduce the amount of
hypo in prints to virtually zero. However, it was discovered
that a small addition of potassium bromide was needed to
prevent some sulfiding of the silver. In addition it was
also discovered that a faint yellowing of white areas
required a subsequent treatment in a weak solution of sodium
sulfite.
HE-1 is still effective but is alkaline enough to
damage some emulsions. It should NEVER be used for film.
Also, it does not remove some fixer reaction products that
can become bound to the emulsion and image silver. Modern
sulfite wash aid is more effective for overall treatment.

The correct formula for HE-1 is:

Kodak HE-1 Hypo Eliminator
Water 500.0 ml
Hydrogen peroxide (3% solution) 125.0 ml
Ammonia (3%) solution 100.0 ml
Potassium bromide 1.0 gram
Water to make 1.0 liter

Wash prints for about 30 minutes in running water at 65F to
70F.
Then immerse print in HE-1 for about 6 minutes at 70F. Then
treat in a solution of sodium sulfite, 1%, for 2 minutes.
Then wash for about 10 minutes. For double weight prints the
was times should be doubled.

The sulfite will tend to remove some of the bound up
reaction products. However, a treatment in 2% sulfite, like
Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent is more effective than the above.
Note that 3% Peroxide is about the strength of drugstore
peroxide and grocery store ammonia is about 3% also so both
can be used for the formula.
The eliminator should be mixed shortly before use and
not stored.

About 1961 T.H.James of Kodak Research Laboratories,
discovered that the old criterion of processing for zero
residual hypo was wrong. He found that a very small residue
of hypo acted as a stabilizer for the image silver. So,
removing all the hypo could make films or prints _more_
suseptable to oxidation by air-borne peroxides. At that time
Kodak stopped recommending the use of HE-1 for any purpose.
Shortly after James made his discovery photo scientists at
Fuji published similar findings.
Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent is also capable of removing
too much hypo but will not if used for the recommended
treatment and wash times.
Greater removal may be necessary for some toners but
generally the amount remaining after recommended treatment
will not affect toning.
All prints should be toned in a sulfiding toner (AKA
sepia toner), a Selenium toner, or in a Gold toner for
permanence.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA