Corran
Well-known
I have no idea what is or is not "chloride paper" but I've found 130 to be a wonderful developer for most papers. Never seen any odd image tone. It has neutral tone on classic papers and subtle warmth on warmtone papers. When I mention my opinions on AZO I am sometimes told I'm "doing it wrong" (especially since I'm not using Amidol) but I think that's more silver-bullet thinking.
Regardless, I think the image matters more than the super subtle differences between papers and developers.
Regardless, I think the image matters more than the super subtle differences between papers and developers.
Nokton48
Veteran
Here's my solution. I retired in December so in three months I built myself a classic B&W silver darkroom without compromise. Now TODAY I am starting to print 
getting there 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Note: the spatulas were for handling glass dry plates in trays, and they have gone bye-bye.
getting there 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr
getting there 2 by Nokton48, on FlickrNote: the spatulas were for handling glass dry plates in trays, and they have gone bye-bye.
getting there 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Freakscene
Obscure member
Azo, Lodima and Lupex are pure chloride papers. They are very slow and are for contact printing.
The image tone of pure chloride papers is affected more by the developer than modern papers. It's not a question of doing it wrong, just that amidol produces the most neutral image colour and supports good separation of close values.
I am not saying what I do is better. I am describing what I do and what I get out of it. I agree re content, but I have a lot more control and skill with process, so at to at least a significant proportion of the whole process that's where I exercise it.
I'd also add that for family reasons it's easier for me to print than to shoot, and I have a huge backlog, so printing, for now, is mostly how I do photography.
Marty
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Corran,
Thanks for your post and insights.
Back in art school in the seventies I developed good printing skills, but that was decades ago. I have a full darkroom in public storage waiting for the day when I have the space and time.
Meanwhile over the decades I have gotten better at making better negatives and have a consistency that should make printing even easier.
Back in art school I was trained to make negatives that I could "straight print" on a single grade number two fiber paper. I was prolific back then, and now I have an archive that records a disappearing New York City.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Marty,
Thanks for taking the time to give a detailed response.
I surely have to look into the hazards of inkjet printing. Like you indicated I was not aware. Certainly the dangers are downplayed.
I know someone who did suffer a mild poisoning doing alternative process.
As far as silver goes I have avoided HC-110 because back in art school my professor mentioned it is a carcenogen. Also the Diafine I utilize is evil. I work at a hospital so I use boxes of latex gloves.
I was invited to be an early adopter of Piezography Pro, mainly because I was a heavy K-7 customer. It seems that along the ways I inadvertently became a very good printer that specializes in B&W. Not a big step to go into printing digital negatives for contact printing.
At age 61 I have only a few more years working my day-job, and soon I'll be setting up a studio.
BTW my Piezography prints have their own look. I print on Baryta coated papers, and perhaps due to my analog training my ascetic is a silver wet print. My prints confuse people and I get asked if they are silver wet prints a lot.
I'm looking forward to wet printing and having a large vacuum frame.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Marty,
I think there is wisdom here. For me I have not settled into my stride. In a way I'm hedged because I have hoarded enough gear to sustain digital and analog; and with analog across small, medium and large format.
I am pretty unlikely to be like Dan above to build out such a versatile darkroom, but I like the idea of contact printing limited editions.
Cal
Corran
Well-known
I was getting good at this and printing really nice prints on Ilford Galerie G2...
And now they've discontinued it
.G3 is a lot contrastier. I still have a few hundred sheets of G2 so I guess at some point I'll have to recalibrate...
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I was getting good at this and printing really nice prints on Ilford Galerie G2...
And now they've discontinued it
G3 is a lot contrastier. I still have a few hundred sheets of G2 so I guess at some point I'll have to recalibrate...
Corran,
My friend John went to a different art school and was taught to optimize negatives to print on a grade 3 paper. Pretty much the same exercise to learn how to make negatives that are easy to "straight print."
Recalibrating should not be a big issue for you.
Old man Steve from the NYC Meet-Up once said, "You can't print what's not there."
Also Christian, a large format shooter, said "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5." I was showing him some 6x9 negatives on a light table.
Pretty much I admire large format shooters and try to emulate their IQ even if shooting small format. With the Monochom (CCD sensor) I'm able to transcend formats.
Cal
Corran
Well-known
Of course, then they may discontinue G3 .
VC paper handles delicate highlights poorly in my opinion based on printing landscape images of waterfalls with lots of highlight detail.
Worse to me is a big loss of sharpness when doing split-filter printing. Changing filters makes the focus change slightly. Of course a better head with filtration done through color of the light would be preferred. If anyone wants to make a donation let me know...:angel:
.VC paper handles delicate highlights poorly in my opinion based on printing landscape images of waterfalls with lots of highlight detail.
Worse to me is a big loss of sharpness when doing split-filter printing. Changing filters makes the focus change slightly. Of course a better head with filtration done through color of the light would be preferred. If anyone wants to make a donation let me know...:angel:
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Of course, then they may discontinue G3
VC paper handles delicate highlights poorly in my opinion based on printing landscape images of waterfalls with lots of highlight detail.
Worse to me is a big loss of sharpness when doing split-filter printing. Changing filters makes the focus change slightly. Of course a better head with filtration done through color of the light would be preferred. If anyone wants to make a donation let me know...:angel:
Corran,
Nothing like a perfect negative. LOL.
Cal
Corran
Well-known
Certainly preferred, but never guaranteed. SF printing is still a valuable tool for many situations and some use it as standard on every negative. It helps localize B&D easier.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Of course, then they may discontinue G3
I share your fear in general, if not specifically about Galerie.
There are other options, and I plan to settle on Foma and Adox for fixed grade paper because I think they have the best chance long term:
https://www.fotoimpex.com/photopaper/fibre-based-photopaper-fixed-grade/
The problem is twofold - there are no VC papers with high highlight contrast, and the contrast curves of VC paper are less linear than those of fixed grade paper. In practical terms, when you change filters with VC paper the shadow contract changes MUCH less than the highlight contrast, and even where they are matched the highlight contrast is lower than for graded paper where the negative matches the contrast. I get sick of printing dark and bleaching shadows to get highlight contrast in photos like you mention where there is a lot of highlight detail or the photo is high key but needs tonal separation.
Have you tried holding a VC filter under the lens, like you might a dodging card? That may help.
I have a Durst 1200 which handles this well, but I still run into the problem of inadequate local contrast in the highlights.
Marty
Freakscene
Obscure member
You are welcome. I know you think and care about this stuff.
With the Piezo inks you probably have the best chance of finding out what the solvent is and from there what its risk profile is. Jon Cone seems quite open. Try finding out what is in Epson ink though, and good luck.
There are solvent, water, and mixed solution mixes used in inkjet inks. It is hard to find out what is what. We installed an extractor in the printing room at my work.
No offence meant to your friend, but you'd have to "soaking in it" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wSO0-OOgBA to make yourself sick unless maybe s/he was using a process where cyanide is the fixative. And I suspect the poisoning would not have been 'mild' if that had been involved. It's pretty simple; it can't hurt you if it never comes into contact with your body. Gloves, mask, goggles, lab coat and good practice.
Developers are all mildly carcinogenic. So is car exhaust, and most of us have a car that burns fossil fuel and/or live in cities. Risk is relative.
No, it wouldn't be a huge step. Platinum makes inkjet paper look cheap, though. You could start with Lupex.
I also have plans, but they pretty far off.
Ascetic or aesthetic? Or both because of how much you spend on ink and paper?
Don't get me wrong, inkjet prints look great. I just do what I do because I like it.
I look forward to seeing them.
Deciding what you want to do, then doing enough of it to learn the craft is more of the struggle than most give it credit for. Shooting is the same; you get better when you do it.
You can do platinum-palladium in a dim room. It makes it easier.
Marty
Bill Clark
Veteran
When in business, I worked to make sure this didn’t happen. Lighting balance. Not quite so hard with digital capture using RAW.
Even now I still work to make sure it doesn’t happen.
Our brain has evolved to have our eyes to go first to the brightest areas of a photograph. It’s instinctive. Perhaps we evolved so as we sense danger. I want the brightest areas of a photograph to be the faces.
I believe ink jet prints offer more than darkroom prints. Just look at all the different papers available. Relative to life, perhaps darkroom black and white prints will last longer but I won’t be around to determine that! And I believe it’s the digital file and/or the negative that’s most important.
Printing is a piece of photography that I had others do for me. I once had a young lady who could make beautiful black and white prints using watercolor paper.
Any way, I found that if the client is happy with the end product then I’m happy.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sorry, Bill. This is absolutely wrong. I can't even begin to explain it if that's your real opinion.
To first order approximation, a digital capture is linear AT THE TIME OF CAPTURE ON THE SENSOR only. By the time that raw data is converted to RGB channel data, it's not at all linear having been through both demosaic and gamma conversion processes.
Personally, I don't give a sailor's damm whether a B&W photograph captured digitally and printed with an inkjet printer looks like some film image or not. I care only whether it is a pleasing photograph with contrast, detailing, etc etc, that expresses its content and the intent of the photographer well.
G
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Mainly, no UV light. Chemical costs though are not cheap, so that's the first big buy in, then you're UV source is the next big cost. lastly it's paper.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Indeed. You can start with the sun if you live somewhere bright.
At Freestyle the Edwards 11x14 UV source is $695. A chemistry kit to start platinum-palladium printing is $2-300, although you can start with kallitypes (an iron-silver process that is very nice itself) for $60-70. Paper varies wildly. I like Adox’s unsensitized baryta paper, which is quite inexpensive, but I also have some Japanese hand made papers that were $50+/sheet. It doesn’t make sense to cut corners anywhere in the process if you plan to use platinum or palladium.
In the end cost largely depends on how many prints you want to make, how big, and how important your photography is to you.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Tell-Mum-Work-Rigs/dp/1857883772
To start printing silver chloride contact prints, of course, all you need is some paper, a desk lamp, a piece of foam or polystyrene, a sheet of glass, three trays and some chemistry. Maybe $200.
Marty
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
The sun method is really inconsistant as a whole and I wouldn't suggest it.
So for the price of that Edwards 11x14 UV, you should be able to buikld a unit for 1/2 that costs.
And if you want to big with your platnum, it was suggested to get a Nuarc unit as it also has the vacuum frame built into it.
For the class I took, we used Hahnemühle Platinum Rag.
So for the price of that Edwards 11x14 UV, you should be able to buikld a unit for 1/2 that costs.
And if you want to big with your platnum, it was suggested to get a Nuarc unit as it also has the vacuum frame built into it.
For the class I took, we used Hahnemühle Platinum Rag.