Author Topic: I just bought a photo enlarger, and I have no idea how to use it (Read 15846 times)

Bogie · « **Reply #25 on:** January 06, 2009, 02:31:13 AM »

Uh... you -are- going to need a gonkulator, and the gonkulator-adjustment vise, ratchet, and calibrator...

What chemistry are you planning to use to soup the film in? We'd usually use heated (if I remember...) HC110 or Dektol, with what we called "constant gentle agitation." Cap it, and keep it moving... Then flood, then fix, and just open/dump in the big rinse sink... Not the world's best negs, but fast, and our process worked just fine at "room temperature" in a tent in Panama... Which you wanted to be out of as fast as possible.

HankB · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2009, 08:52:41 AM »

Quote from: zahc on January 05, 2009, 09:52:57 PM

A paper holder? Is that kind of like the gonkulator? Doesn't the paper just sit on the bottom? And how long am I supposed to shake everything, until the bunny shows up or just long enough to appease the broodwich?

I had an easel which had a couple of sliding masks to hold the paper down all along the edge - kept it flat AND made a border on the print as well.

Quote from: Monkeyleg on January 05, 2009, 11:08:17 PM

The paper holder keeps the paper flat. On an enlarger you have a very shallow depth of field.

And the depth of field depends on the lens quality and lens aperture. Remember that depth of field is related to depth of focus by the square of the magnification, so smaller prints will have less depth of field.

Quote from: Bogie on January 05, 2009, 08:13:19 PM

No, you're not swinging the red filter out of the way...

Actually, on the enlarger I had - an ancient Omega - one did swing the filter out of the way to expose.

zahc · « **Reply #27 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:33:18 AM »

Quote

What chemistry are you planning to use to soup the film in?

For the time being I figured on shooting C-41 B&W and having Target do the developing ($.95/roll)

Bogie · « **Reply #28 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:03:55 PM »

Owie... It's been a while, but I -never- liked any of the C41 B&W films... Maybe they got better...

What paper are you planning on using?

If you want something larger, www.digitalenlarging.com, okay?

Manedwolf · « **Reply #29 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:06:37 PM »

Quote from: zahc on January 06, 2009, 10:33:18 AM

For the time being I figured on shooting C-41 B&W and having Target do the developing ($.95/roll)

Does Target say they do B&W? If they do automatic stuff in store, the min-wage sorts operating it will just leave it in its standard color mode, and B&W will come out badly off. Not just the prints, but the negatives as well. Wrong chemicals, grainy, all that.

If they send it off, you might have better luck, otherwise I would look for a place that specifically does B&W developing. And yes, it will cost if you want them to come out right.

Something like this:

http://www.danscamera.com/Services/film/black-and-white.html

Quote

We develop black & white film by hand on reels using Kodak chemistry. This produces superb negatives with fine grain and a long tonal scale suitable for superior quality enlargements.

Film type    Price
Standard Black & White    $8.00
Tech Pan and Infrared    $15.00
4Ã—5 sheet film    $2.00 per sheet, $6 minimum
Push or Pull, up to 3 stops    $2.00 per stop
XP2, T400CN, B&W Select (C-41 films)    $3.00 for 35mm
$4.00 for 120

mtnbkr · « **Reply #30 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:22:53 PM »

C41 B&W is processed in normal color chemistry. I got it done at Wal-Mart frequently, 1hr even.

FWIW, I don't think you can get acceptable C41B&W prints on normal B&W paper. I *think* it has to be printed on color paper. Might want to check into that...

Also FWIW, I really like Kodak T400CN. It was a good match to my Olympus OM-1.

Chris

mtnbkr · « **Reply #31 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:24:17 PM »

Zahc, if you're not a member at www.apug.org, you might want to sign up there. LOTS of good info with virtually no digital pollution.

Chris

zahc · « **Reply #32 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:33:49 PM »

Quote

Does Target say they do B&W?

I don't think it matters, c-41 is c-41. They have automatic machines. I don't think it even matters what film speed you use...I kindof thought the machines read the DX coding on the canisters but from what I've learned they all go through the same chemistry at the same temperature. I've shot some Kodak BW400CN and it came out very nice to my taste, at least the Target scans did. Very fine grain, almost none. I don't know if you can print it on B&W paper, maybe not since it's like chromogenic and doesn't have that nice metallic silver to block the light.

go_bang · « **Reply #33 on:** January 06, 2009, 01:13:09 PM »

You can print the C-41 B&W films on traditional B&W paper just fine. You might have to filter them differently. IIRC, the Kodak films have the film base tinted to a color that helps the automated minilab machines keep the prints neutral.

Before you embark on anything else with this make sure you know how to properly dispose of the chemistry. Many locales require that you dispose of through a household waste program. People used to just dump it down the drain but that was before all the environmental clean water regs.

The Kodak C-41 B&W films were my favorite when I was shooting film. You can under and over expose the stuff by two stops and still get an excellent negative. The stuff also scans better than the conventional silver halide films.

zahc · « **Reply #34 on:** January 06, 2009, 01:20:08 PM »

The apuggers say to just dump chemistry down the drain; the small amounts won't hurt anything.

HankB · « **Reply #35 on:** January 06, 2009, 02:23:13 PM »

It's been a LONG time since I did any B&W work myself . . . used to use Panatomic-X film, and develop the negs myself in a - digging deep into my memory - dilute Microdol-X solution . . . the least favorite part of the process was winding the negs onto the spindle of my developing tank in total darkness. (NO red light to handle negatives!!!)

Prints were sequentially run through pans of developer, short-stop, and fixer solutions, then put on a chrome sheet (face down) and rolled flat - when dry, they popped off. (Yes, there WAS some curl.)

The chemistry went down the drain back then, with nary a thought. Even today, it's hard to see the small quantities a home hobbyist would use as anything to worry about.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #36 on:** January 06, 2009, 06:15:35 PM »

Quote

...used to use Panatomic-X film...

Oh, yeah. Panatomic-X developed in Rodinal, and printed on Agfa Brovira paper. Rodinal had a tendency to make grain more pronounced. With a fine-grain film like Panatomic-X, though, grain didn't count. The Rodinal made the shots more crisp. And the Afga Brovira paper gave deep, rich blacks. The blacks in Kodak papers looked like dark grays by comparison.

zahc · « **Reply #37 on:** January 06, 2009, 06:28:42 PM »

Ya the thing about the chromogenic films is both XP2 and BW400CN are expensive. I somehow feel that black and white film should be cheaper than color print film, not the other way round, so maybe I'll see how much chemicals cost and then get a bulk spool of normal B&W film or something. Paying more than about $2 a roll starts to annoy me.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #38 on:** January 06, 2009, 06:32:39 PM »

Quote from: zahc on January 06, 2009, 06:28:42 PM

Ya the thing about the chromogenic films is both XP2 and BW400CN are expensive. I somehow feel that black and white film should be cheaper than color print film, not the other way round, so maybe I'll see how much chemicals cost and then get a bulk spool of normal B&W film or something. Paying more than about $2 a roll starts to annoy me.

I haven't looked, but if B&H carries it in an "Import" format, you could get it much cheaper. Import merely means film produced for the overseas market.

Chris

Bogie · « **Reply #39 on:** January 06, 2009, 09:06:29 PM »

We had an automated paper processor, which was pretty cool. We still had to wash 'em for a good long time...

Really helps when you're processing ten rolls, and you're printing every other shot...

Harold Tuttle · « **Reply #40 on:** January 07, 2009, 11:20:01 AM »

a buddy set up a photography business in Arlington Va and the local gov't wanted to know what he was going to be flushing into their sewer system...

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #41 on:** January 07, 2009, 06:38:58 PM »

Quote

a buddy set up a photography business in Arlington Va and the local gov't wanted to know what he was going to be flushing into their sewer system...

I went through that in 1987 when I opened my studio. The zoning appeals board gave me a ton of grief (AFTER I'd signed a five-year lease). One issue was chemicals. That went away when I told them that all processing would be done at a lab downtown.

That's not to say that some of the chemicals can be pretty toxic. I used to clean trays with cleanser that contained chlorine. When it came to the fixer trays, I just dumped some cleanser and water in them and got out before the chlorine gas got to be too much.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #42 on:** January 07, 2009, 11:32:09 PM »

<-- Click

zahc · « **Reply #43 on:** January 07, 2009, 11:57:11 PM »

Was there a point to that?

Harold Tuttle · « **Reply #44 on:** January 08, 2009, 11:30:35 AM »

Quote from: CNYCacher on January 07, 2009, 11:32:09 PM

link <-- Click

Me thinks someone is advocating moderne tools

mtnbkr · « **Reply #45 on:** January 08, 2009, 11:46:33 AM »

Amazing that so many people will accept others using primitive tools "because they enjoy the experience" but will get their panties in a twist when someone attempts to use traditional photography methods.

Chris

HankB · « **Reply #46 on:** January 08, 2009, 12:29:07 PM »

Quote from: Harold Tuttle on January 07, 2009, 11:20:01 AM

a buddy set up a photography business in Arlington Va and the local gov't wanted to know what he was going to be flushing into their sewer system...

Quote from: Monkeyleg on January 07, 2009, 06:38:58 PM

I went through that in 1987 when I opened my studio. The zoning appeals board gave me a ton of grief (AFTER I'd signed a five-year lease). One issue was chemicals.

These were both BUSINESSES. A hobbyist won't even be a blip on their regulatory radar.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #47 on:** January 08, 2009, 01:44:04 PM »

I still want to get into wet-plate techniques, as well as stuff like tintypes and daguerreotypes.

Talk about a witches' brew of chemicals, though.

Harold Tuttle · « **Reply #48 on:** January 08, 2009, 01:50:51 PM »

my Buddy, Rob Kendrick, making tintypes:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/bestvintage/multimedia_vid2.html

mtnbkr · « **Reply #49 on:** January 08, 2009, 02:01:40 PM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on January 08, 2009, 01:44:04 PM

I still want to get into wet-plate techniques, as well as stuff like tintypes and daguerreotypes.

Talk about a witches' brew of chemicals, though.

Me too. I just don't have time or a good workplace.

Sally Mann does some fantastic wet plate work.

Chris

News:

Author Topic: I just bought a photo enlarger, and I have no idea how to use it (Read 15846 times)