Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

In article ,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

In my experience:

Many times the matte surface paper will have a dmax of
1.50-1.55 and
quite a long ascent to get to it for a "NF" no filter
exposure. The
matte papers tend to have about three/three and one half
usable grades.

Whereas glossy papers tend to have a dmax around 2.00 to
2.10 for a
"NF" exposure.....using a 21 step wedge. Seem to have 4.5
grades maybe
five if its a good paper.

--
I agree. This is also obvious from some Kodak data on
their older papers. The visual contrast is affected by the
density or perhaps its better to call it the reflective
range of the paper. Glossy RC and ferrotyped glossy fiber
have the longet range of all at both ends. Very few papers
are capable of Dmax greater than about 2.0. This is better
than the Dmax of some of the classic papers of the past (Azo
for instance) which even in ferrotyped glossy had Dmax of no
more than perhaps 1.8. Textured or matt surfaces reduce this
a lot due to light scatter throughout the scale.
I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
which I think would be completely unacceptable today. Kodak
also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as destructive
to the image. For the most part these highly textured papers
were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed on
portraits by simply supressing fine detail. I've seen
portraits from the 1930s where so much soft focus, texture,
retouching, has been done as to make the image nearly
generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.

Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a Durst 670M
I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly large box
500 sheets of Medalist paper. The paper almost predated me! In someways
I remember the smell of that musty paper in fond memory of learning how
to develop and process hit and miss.

I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my prints.

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

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
...
snip
I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample books. Agfa and
Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces which I think would be completely
unacceptable today. Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
destructive to the image. For the most part these highly textured papers
were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed on portraits by
simply supressing fine detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so
much soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make the image
nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.

I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's. It has a selection
of paper samples bound in it. I knida wish some of those papers were still
available, like the canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from
the usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.

"____" wrote in message
...
snip
Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a Durst 670M
I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly large box
500 sheets of Medalist paper. The paper almost predated me! In someways
I remember the smell of that musty paper in fond memory of learning how
to develop and process hit and miss.

I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my prints.

I remember ferrotyping fondly!

I found the my secret to getting good finish and flat prints, using one of
those flip-over type dryers. I ran cold water over a plate, floated the
print onto it, rollered it with fair pressure, put it in the dryer, and
flipped it over so it was on the bottom. Three minutes later, I did the same
thing with the second plate. After the print dried for three minutes on the
top, it came loose from the plate. I took it out, put it face down on a cool
surface under weight (My college Calculus textbook worked great-- it was
good to finally get some worthwhile value from it!)

I still have that dryer and the plates in my darkroom. I wish I could find
some use for it; it's not even good as a space heater. Make an offer!

"Ken Hart" wrote in message
...

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in
message ...
snip
I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
destructive to the image. For the most part these highly
textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of
retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine
detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much
soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make
the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the
person.

I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida
wish some of those papers were still available, like the
canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the
usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of
surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course,
not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away
with the introduction of economical color printing methods
and others due to simple lack of market. There were some
unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was
Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface
supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet
painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key
portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a
print on this stuff for 40 years.


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

"____" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

In my experience:

Many times the matte surface paper will have a dmax of
1.50-1.55 and
quite a long ascent to get to it for a "NF" no filter
exposure. The
matte papers tend to have about three/three and one
half
usable grades.

Whereas glossy papers tend to have a dmax around 2.00
to
2.10 for a
"NF" exposure.....using a 21 step wedge. Seem to have
4.5
grades maybe
five if its a good paper.

--
I agree. This is also obvious from some Kodak data
on
their older papers. The visual contrast is affected by
the
density or perhaps its better to call it the reflective
range of the paper. Glossy RC and ferrotyped glossy fiber
have the longet range of all at both ends. Very few
papers
are capable of Dmax greater than about 2.0. This is
better
than the Dmax of some of the classic papers of the past
(Azo
for instance) which even in ferrotyped glossy had Dmax of
no
more than perhaps 1.8. Textured or matt surfaces reduce
this
a lot due to light scatter throughout the scale.
I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
Kodak
also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
destructive
to the image. For the most part these highly textured
papers
were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed
on
portraits by simply supressing fine detail. I've seen
portraits from the 1930s where so much soft focus,
texture,
retouching, has been done as to make the image nearly
generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.

Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a
Durst 670M
I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly
large box
500 sheets of Medalist paper. The paper almost predated
me! In someways
I remember the smell of that musty paper in fond memory of
learning how
to develop and process hit and miss.

I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my
prints.


Ferrotyping is a bit of an art but was a standard
finish for commercial and photo-finisher prints. Part of the
secret is to have very good plates. The best IMO are chrome
plated but others claim to get better results from enamelled
plates with the right sort of wax. I used to ferrotype
frequently many years ago but have had trouble with modern
papers, perhaps the emulsion is too hard. On a good plate
the print should have a very uniform finish and should just
pop off the plate when dry.


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

In article ,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

"Ken Hart" wrote in message
...

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in
message ...
snip
I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
destructive to the image. For the most part these highly
textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of
retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine
detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much
soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make
the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the
person.

I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida
wish some of those papers were still available, like the
canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the
usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of
surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course,
not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away
with the introduction of economical color printing methods
and others due to simple lack of market. There were some
unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was
Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface
supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet
painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key
portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a
print on this stuff for 40 years.

Yes they hare one day and gone the other

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

"Richard Knoppow" wrote

I used to ferrotype frequently many years ago but have had trouble with
modern papers, perhaps the emulsion is too hard.

That's good to know - I haven't been able to
get a good ferrotype finish - and I was
blaming it on the modern me.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Ken Hart" wrote in message
...

I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.

So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how
to make a new subject line?

On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus:

"Ken Hart" wrote in message
...

I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.

So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how
to make a new subject line?

JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus:

"Ken Hart" wrote in message
...

I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.

So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know
how to make a new subject line?

JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby.

Okay for you, ya big baby. Arm wrestling tomorrow at Kennedy's Pub. Eh?
Okay, it's not my favorite place, either. A biker bar maybe?