If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cool tone print developers vs other processes
"Lew" wrote in message ... Just getting back from Stieglitz, Steichen, Strand at the Met. I'm completely blown away by the difference between the wonderful deep tones of the gum over platinum prints vs the gs prints, including the ones made by Steiglitz himself. There's such a visible difference between the washed out greys of the gs and the velvety blacks of the other processes! Are any of the commercial 'neutral tone' developers such as Platinum II, Clayton P20, or Formulary TD 31 going to help? If yes, are there any diy formulas published? I mix pretty much everything myself. I've also seen old gelatin-silver prints that were disappointing. I think some of this may be the nature of the paper but some is just bad processing. For instance, many of the Edward Weston prints at the Huntington are quite dark, they look over exposed and I suspect may have been rejects. Other prints look great even though from the same period. Prints made much later by Cole Weston mostly blow the originals away. It may be that the paper was better but I am not at all sure. In general, the range of gelatin-silver paper is greater than platinum or paladium. Overcoating platimum with gum will increase the densities plus a great deal of manipulation is possible. Carbon prints also pretty much match GS and may have been better nearly a century ago. If you are having trouble with good blacks on modern paper its more likely the negatives or technique than the developer. Actually, provided the developer is reasonably active, it will have little effect on the maximum density or on the paper curve. It can on the image color to some degree but that is mostly determined by the nature of the emulsion. While there are those who swear by somewhat obscure developer such as Amidol, they really are little different although Amidol will insure neutral tones and certainly makes good prints. Dektol is noted for producing a slightly olive color on some paper. Adding some benzotriazole to it will stop that. Also developers using Phenidone, such as Ilford Bromophen, will produce somewhat more neutral colors on many papers than Dektol. Using Dektol at a stronger dilution than the standard 1:2 may also provide more satisfactory results. It will develop slightly faster and have longer life at 1:1, the blacks are still limited mostly by the paper but you will get whatever they can do a bit easier. In general paper should be exposed so that it develops at a pretty much standard time. That will be around 2 minutes for papers without incorporated developer in the emulsion and closer to a minute or 90 seconds for those that have. Unlike film paper is developed to "completion" that is to the maximum contrast of which its capable. Because of this variation of developing time has very little effect on contrast although it may compensate a little if the exposure is not correct. Too short a time will result in muddy blacks, too long a time will generally bring up fog in the highlights and may also result in poor blacks due to lack of exposure. Getting negatives right is very important, they should be exposed and processed to print at close to "normal" grade paper. Modern variable contrast papers can compensate over a wide range but generally if a negative will not print within one grade of "normal" the quality of the print will not be the best. There is a great deal in the literature, including all the Zone System material, about how to get good negatives. There are other things that can contribute to bad prints, something as simple as flare in the enlarging lens from dirt will ruin a print. Also, fog from stray light or defective safelights. Both Kodak and Ilford have published methods for testing safelights, while not quite the same they accomplish the same purpose. Safelights can be tricky because they can look fine to the eye and still produce fog. Especially old filters should be tested occasionally because they do fade. I hope this helps a bit. If you have specific problems post them, the above is very general advice and may not apply to your problem. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cool tone print developers vs other processes | Thor Lancelot Simon | In The Darkroom | 0 | February 22nd 11 09:13 PM |
Cold Tone B&W Paper Developers. | Keith Tapscott. | In The Darkroom | 0 | August 16th 08 11:42 PM |
Warm tone papers and developers | Lew | In The Darkroom | 16 | March 30th 06 11:52 PM |
New Ilford Print Developers. | Keith Tapscott | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 26th 06 09:22 PM |
FA: This Minox B spy camera not only LOOKS cool, carrying it makes you FEEL cool! | Hugh Lyon-Sach | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | August 12th 05 05:38 PM |