[gord lucas]

Lovely focus on the eyes. Don't hesitate to use that lens on your DSLR - it's dazzling for heads!

[gord lucas]

Great shots. Today, with scanning, the old rules about film do not apply as much, IMHO. I can post shots from various films that are scanned and I can't tell one brand of film from the next most the time because you have way more control of the contrast curve than with wet printing.

And with scanning, you don't need to target specific paper densities if you ink print and you actually want to under expose somewhat. Scanners cannot reach into a dense negative to grab all the tonal scale as well as a thinner negative unless you have a drum scanner, for example.

I'd agree with pretty much everything you said - I've always been a printer, and confess I haven't yet explored ink printing except on the most cursory level. I do like the challenge of matching film/developer/paper to get the result I want, and a silver print does have an exquisite quality that nothing can duplicate. The freezing swamp shot, for instance - I printed an 8x12 enlargement on 11x14 glossy paper, ferrotyped it, then trimmed and framed it. It really is something else.

As I have the print, I scan them. Not really interested in negative scanning - it's too homogeneous and doesn't have the personality of the film/developer/print result.

And I've yet to see anything that can match an 11x14 or 16x20 from a 4x5 negative or transparency. I'm sure it's out there, but I haven't seen it yet.

I'm pretty sure that they'll eventually be separate "arts", like lithograph and line drawing . . .

But we have to keep learning - so next year's Christmas present to myself is going to be one of those new Canon Pixma pro jobs.

[tuco]

...

And I've yet to see anything that can match an 11x14 or 16x20 from a 4x5 negative or transparency. I'm sure it's out there, but I haven't seen it yet.

Are you a member of the Large Format Photography forum? Interesting discussions about printing over there. Some old grey beards swear they get great results with ink printing. Some prefer it. I don't have the best enlarging lens for my 4x5 enlarger and I think it is often a limiting factor.

I can get more "clarity" from digital scans/printing because of the fine control in a graphics editor. But I also get pretty good control of of just shadows and highlights from my Pyro developer, multi-grade paper and filters on the enlarger when wet printing. Something you can't do with conventional developers.

[stevebrot]

Some old grey beards swear they get great results with ink printing.

Photogravure?

I have been tempted to explore that technique. There is a studio here in Portland with the required presses and etching equipment.


Steve

[tuco]

Photogravure?

I have been tempted to explore that technique. There is a studio here in Portland with the required presses and etching equipment.


Steve

I don't think that's what they were talking about. More the new fiber papers and good ink sets. But carbon printing seems to be most impressive. You need to make a digital negative and you can do that from a scanned image just as well as a digital. I wanna try that one of these days.

[gord lucas]

Are you a member of the Large Format Photography forum? Interesting discussions about printing over there. Some old grey beards swear they get great results with ink printing. Some prefer it. I don't have the best enlarging lens for my 4x5 enlarger and I think it is often a limiting factor.

I can get more "clarity" from digital scans/printing because of the fine control in a graphics editor. But I also get pretty good control of of just shadows and highlights from my Pyro developer, multi-grade paper and filters on the enlarger when wet printing. Something you can't do with conventional developers.

Tuco: Yes, I actually am, but I'm not there very often. I'm just getting back into film so I'll probably pop up there soon.

I think by the time you get to 4x5 and printing with those big negatives you have pretty much found what works for you. It's simply not beginners' territory. But digital threw us all for a loop. I went for 4 or 5 years just learning the medium so I could wade around in it. My final decision has been to use digital for color and film for B&W, and I feel very comfortable with this decision. As my real love is in the B&W darkroom, I've never really been a total equipment freak, because I knew the final results came in that little room, and a guy with skills there could make a neg from a Konica come out better than a guy with no skills and his Leica. But we all know that. I suppose this darkroom thing made me a half-frame freak . . . I was always so fond of showing off prints made with my Pen F using Kodachrome 25 or Panatomic X developed in FG7 and printed on Cibachrome or Galerie, to medium format and high end camera guys who had their C41s developed and printed in 1 hour photo and went into paroxisms of rage over whose privy member was bigger!

I'm fond of scanning prints because that means I've made them! I'm certain better images can be made with scanning negs and inkjet printers, but my English side says "I've always done it this way, and will continue to do so!" I also have a 4x5 Chromega XL enlarger, and I really would like to get more use out of it with my 4x5 Linhof and the 6x7 back as well.

I'm also fond of tweaking a RAW file in the photo program to get the best image I can - turns my crank more than the actual photo process itself! Guess it's the way I'm built.

Never tried pyro. Most of my darkroom time was spent with half-frame, and I lived in a time of plenty, so never got into muzzle loading or longbows! ;-) However, now that I'm older and wiser, I might take a crack at it!!!

I also have an overwhelming desire to get into 5x7 for making contact prints! Yes, I know that I should do 8x10 for this, but the 5x7 print size somehow does it for me - again, probably from my half-frame fixation. I settled upon this as my "standard" enlargement. I mean, let's face it. How many 16x20 or 20x24 sized prints can we fit on our walls??

[stevebrot]

Panatomic X developed in FG7

RIP to both of those excellent products. I miss them, particularly FG7.


Steve

[alan_smithee_photos]

K1000, K 135 2.5, Delta 3200 (@1600)







More here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/286542-people-alina-f...nary-tale.html

[jva59]

K1000, K 135 2.5, Delta 3200 (@1600)







More here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/286542-people-alina-f...nary-tale.html

Lovely (model and photos)!

[gord lucas]

Yes indeed. Rodinal?

[tuco]

Some Seattle history. These are both the same rocket except it now has an art deco look. Apparently this was originally constructed from army surplus and stood outside PJ's Surplus Plus store in Seattle. It's now called the Fremont Rocket where it has a new home.

26 Jan 1991, Belltown


Pentax 6x7, 67 200/4, PXP (6057) Pan Pro


21 June 2014, Fremont


Pentax 67, 67 55/4, 400TMY

Different shooting styles now and back then. In 1991 I used TTL metered prism and standard development times. Today, I shoot with a WLF, the Sunny 11 Rule to place my shadows and compress the heck out of my highlights ( 400TMY @ EI100 and EI50). With this technique, it doesn't matter which direction you point the camera (into sun or away) because the exposure ends up being the same.

[malinku]

Another wrestling shot. Lighting was a bit dim so action shot are a bit blurry.

[mattt]

Quick Question for those who develop their own. I normally use D-76 developer. I've picked up a discounted volume of HC-110, and thought I'd give it a go as my local shop has stopped stocking the smaller package size of the dry D-76 (I dont shoot enough to mix a gallon of stock in one go). I normally do inversions for 30 sec, and 10 seconds every minute there after, stamping after the minute wise inversions. I am working at 20 C. I referred to the Massive Dev Chart for some guidance as I have a roll of HP5+ @ 800 and Delta 100 @ 200 to develop - Ilford Data sheet has HP5+ @ 800 is 7.5 mins for solution B, and Delta 100 @ 200 is 8 mins for solution B. Massive Dev Chart has two times for HP5+... So here I am asking you:

1) If you had HP5+ @ 800 and HC-110 developer, what time would you use?
2) After mixing HC-110, do you let it stand 24 hrs before use?

Cheers

[tuco]

1) If you had HP5+ @ 800 and HC-110 developer, what time would you use?
2) After mixing HC-110, do you let it stand 24 hrs before use?

Cheers

For my first time use of HP5+ with HC-110, I'd follow the developing time given in the HP5+ Data Sheet for that developer in the absence of any other member's experience with that combo. I'd mix and use it right away. It's a liquid.

And I'd use the agitation profile recommend by the HC-110 Data Sheet. However, it is a little more vague than Kodak's other data sheets. It says for small tank agitate every 30 seconds. I'd recommend 3 inversions within 5 seconds every 30 second as a starting point. If you are getting uneven development, I'd add more inversions to the profile.

Developer time and agitation profile are connected! If you take a person's arbitrary development time for a film/developer combo and apply a different agitation profile than they used, you can get different results. That can vary from insignificant to significant depending how much different your profile is. For example, if a developer recommends a profile of 3 inversions every 30 seconds and you do more than that and more vigorously, it will develop your film more. In effect "pushing the film" or looking at it another way of as speeding up your film.

[dracluff]

Quick Question for those who develop their own. I normally use D-76 developer. I've picked up a discounted volume of HC-110, and thought I'd give it a go as my local shop has stopped stocking the smaller package size of the dry D-76 (I dont shoot enough to mix a gallon of stock in one go). I normally do inversions for 30 sec, and 10 seconds every minute there after, stamping after the minute wise inversions. I am working at 20 C. I referred to the Massive Dev Chart for some guidance as I have a roll of HP5+ @ 800 and Delta 100 @ 200 to develop - Ilford Data sheet has HP5+ @ 800 is 7.5 mins for solution B, and Delta 100 @ 200 is 8 mins for solution B. Massive Dev Chart has two times for HP5+... So here I am asking you:

1) If you had HP5+ @ 800 and HC-110 developer, what time would you use?
2) After mixing HC-110, do you let it stand 24 hrs before use?

Cheers

I have been using HC-110 for the past little while with HP5+. I use it mainly because it keeps for quite a while when left as a syrup (see Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page). I have not shot my HP5+ at 800 yet so I can not answer that question. I have developped my film at 5 min in Dilution B with agitation for the first 30 seconds and then 4 inversions everyminute thereafter and the results were reasonable. I have started using Dilution H (1:64 instead of 1:32) because in my 4 roll tank I find the filling and emptying times to be long and the 5 minute development time was a little short. The last few rolls were Dilution H for 10 minutes and the results were pretty much the same.
Note I am no expert I have been developping my own film for maybe a year. I have not had time to do thorough trials with the film/developper combinations like many suggest but I do get some pretty solid results. I am just starting to get to the point of trying to play with dynamic range through exposure/developping changes etc.
I guess I have not really answered your question but check out that website as far as HC-110 is concerned there is a lot of useful information there.
Good luck