At 06:51 PM 09/15/2001 -0700, you wrote:
With Summer now coming to an end, I'll be looking at spending
some time back in the darkroom again. (yes, the smell of
stop-bath! Don't get that with Epson printers)
I'm jealous, but my dark room should be up and running sometime this winter.
A couple things I'm going to be doing different this year.
First of all, I'm thinking about a switch from Ilford paper to
Kodak paper OR a switch in chemistry. The problem I'm having
with the Ilford multicontrast RC paper is that the deep blacks
don't get coal-tar black like I've seen with Kodak
paper/chemistry. It's not exposure related as I can blast a
sheet of paper till the cows come home and it still remains
slight gray tinged. I'm using the Ilford chemistry. Does
anybody have any thoughts?
It's been awhile, but I remember Gallarie (Ilford, I think) as being a
terrific paper capable of true blacks. Unless there's been a change, it's
graded, not VC.
Secondly, I'm going to experiment with my drum roller for B&W
print making. Instead of filling entire trays with chemistry I
can use a lot less in the drum that I had gotten for color work.
Thirdly, I'm going to bug my father to let me use his film
developer stuff (canisters, spools, beakers, changing bag, etc)
so I can process my own B&W. I'm going to land back in the
world of either Ilford Pan-F or Kodak Plus-X. My primary desire
is to get as grainless and high resolving of a film as possible.
I know I can get that with both of these films. What are the
"soup" recommendations that you have for either (or both) of
these films. Along with that, I will also need a current "soup"
recommendation for Tri-X.
I know Plus-X is the favorite of many, but I've never been a fan. Maybe I
didn't develop it right or something. But Pan F 50 is another story. A
bit contrasty, but super fine grain: a beautiful film.
You really ought to try Ilford's XP2 Super, their chromogenic (C-41) B&W
film. It's rated at 400, but shoot a roll at 200. (Actually, I think you
can mix EI's on the same roll.) I have an 8x12 made for this film that is
totally grainless with the print inches from my eye. There's plenty of
middle gray sky, where grain always shows up, and there simply is no
visible grain in this print. It also has a long, long gray scale and is
very forgiving in contrasty situations. As for Tri-X, it was my only film
for years. I always developed in HC-110 in a 1:31 dilution as a one shot
developer. It works miracles with Tri-X. I also shot Tri-X at 200 to get
good shadow detail and adjusted the developing time for the highlights.
I will also be doing some experiementation with my enlarger by
switching to a CF tube instead of the regular enlarger bulb.
I'm trying to "convert" my enlarger from a condensor to a
diffusion type without losing tons of stops. I won't toss out
the regular bulb or condensors, but I'm hoping that I can do
something to "brighten" and create a difuse source of light.
I'm on a tight budget, so getting a different enlarger or head
is out of the question.
This sounds like a move in the right direction--anything but point source
light. I know there's a lot of disagreement on this point, but the best
prints I ever made were on an old Omega B-22 with a cold light head. This
combination even beat my Leitz Focomat.
In other words, come the end of October, I may be putting aside
the Velvia for quite a while.
Long live B&W.
OM content: All 35mm shots taken with Olympus.
Ken N.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|