Home printing suggestions

"G.T." wrote in message
...
Richard Knoppow wrote:


Thanks for all the tips.

Anoter suggestion: Use a two bath fixer. The capacity
of a single fixing bath to fix completely, which is
important to permenance, is very limited for either film
or paper. By using two successive baths, each for half
the recommended fixing time, the capacity of the fixer is
extended from perhaps four to ten times. Kodak has
instructions for the method in some of its data booklets.
If you can't find it post back and I will detail it.

Clarification about fixer since at school the fixer was
provided by them so I didn't know much about it. I'm
using a fixer from Freestyle that clears film in about 30
seconds. Do I use the same fixer for prints? And is the
time in the fixer the same for film? And I absolutely
need to get some Hypo Clear for fiber prints, right?


They are supplying you with "rapid" fixer, that is fixer
made of ammonium thiousulfate rather than sodium
thiosulfate. The fixer works faster partly because of the
properties of the type of fixer and partly because it is at
a higher concentration than is usual for the sodium form.
Fixing time should be about twice clering time for any
kind of fixer. Also, the fact that the fixer clears film
does not mean it will completely convert the unused halide
to a soluble form. The capacity of ammonium fixer is
somewhat greater than the sodium form but, in a two bath
setup, there is less difference.
Ammonium thiosulfate fixer when acidified, as it must be
to have a hardener, will cause bleaching of the image if
fixing time is extended. Because the bleaching effect is
greater for the very fine grain images of printing paper
(much finer than film) it is usually recommended that rapid
fixer be used in greater dilution for paper than for film,
although the more concentrated form can be used if one is
careful about time. Ammonium fixer when neutral or alkaline
does not have this bleaching effect. Actually acid sodium
thiosulfate fixer also will cause bleaching but it takes a
very long time so its not usually a concern.
I would strongly recommend the use of a sulfite wash
aid for either film or fiber base paper. Not only is the
wash time reduced but the sulfite can dislodge some
complexes which otherwise are chemically bound to the
gelatin or emulsion silver. While it will not take the place
of adequate fixing it does help to extend the capacity of
the fixer.
Again, RC paper washes out so fast that wash aid is not
required.
The reason many books recommend different fixer for
paper and film is that film has a great deal of silver
iodide in the emulsion and the iodide anion comes out in the
fixer. Iodide can slow down the fixer. It has less effect on
rapid fixer than sodium fixer. When a two bath fixing system
is used the iodide makes no practical difference and both
materials can be fixed in the same solutions. Actually, both
can be fixed in a single bath fixer if you make sure your
paper is getting fully fixed. In fact, most modern variable
contast papers contain some silver iodide emulsion, plus
iodide is sometimes added to fixing baths as an image
preservative! This is usually for microfilm where the
presense of some iodide in either developer or fixing bath
results in a reduction of image oxidation.
A lot of the rules found in older literature are either
wrong or are no longe applicable.
A tremendous amount of research has been done in the
last about 20 years in to image permanence. Some of this
research has changed some of the older ideas of what
constitutes proper processing for permanence (I hate the
term archival).

The Omega B-22 is a very good enlarger. If the lenses
you got with it are decent you got a bargain. Do you mind
stating what they are? Check the lenses for scratches or
gouges. So-called cleaning marks are actually many small
scratches capable of destroying the contrast of a lens,
the glass should be scratch and haze free. Haze can be
fixed, scratches can not be.

It was an Ebay Buy-It-Now so we'll see when it gets here.
At $75 I won't mind replacing the lenses if necessary.

I agree that you got a bargain. Let us know what sort
of lenses you got. Inquiring minds want to know.

Have fun and congratulations for discovering
old-fashioned chemical photography:-)

Thanks, I really enjoy it and I'm hoping that there are
more people like me out there that are giving it a shot in
this digital world.

Greg


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

"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.
Good enlarging lenses are very important even if one is
a rank beginner because otherwise the poor quality resulting
from poor lenses is likely to be very discouraging.


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

On 1/23/2008 3:07 PM G.T. spake thus:

...for drying?
Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat?

You didn't ask about drying RC, but said you might be printing it, so ...

I've always just hung RC prints from the corner with wood clothespins.
They come out nice and flat. Contrary to what Richard said here, I've
never had any problems with that leaving marks on the prints. (I don't
print borderless, so that wouldn't be a problem in any case.)

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.

In article , David
Nebenzahl
kens says...

That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.

Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
first so boiling was no longer necessary.

In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
In article , David
Nebenzahl
says...

That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.

Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
first so boiling was no longer necessary.

Anthrax! See:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9C94 6896D6CF

Perhaps more of a problem in 1919 than today.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

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

"Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote
Rob Morley wrote:
David Nebenzahl kens says...
"archival quality" bit reminds me of my shaving brush
which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
sterilized once upon a time,
Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
badger bristle.
Anthrax! See:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9C94 6896D6CF

Another life-long mystery solved ...

--
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

In article ,
"Pieter" wrote:

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

I like my RC printer dryer, overall I got it cheap as a part of a
package deal $800 USD for an 11x14 automatic Regal Arkay dryer and a
11x14 Fujimoto paper processor.

I always let the prints settle after drying the lay perfectly flat after
about two minutes of cooling.

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

In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:

In article , David
Nebenzahl
kens says...

That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.

Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
first so boiling was no longer necessary.

Syphilis?, Anthrax, or just general facial rot

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

In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:

Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease

That will teach ya, you should not be molesting badgers, or badgering
them either.

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