Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions
--- Andrew Amundsen wrote: > Hi everyone, I am freshly inspired after this weekends pinhole forum, hosted > by Tom Miller and Bill Erikson, at the pARTs gallery in Minneapolis. Very > nice job, hope to see more like it. > > I'm interested in trying paper negative work with pinhole. So I have a > couple quick questions for those with paper negative experience: > > 1) What brand of single weight photo paper has NO labeling on it's back? > > 2) Does the Kodak name, from the back, show through on the final print when > you print with that brand? or is it faint enough not to? In my experience, I have never seen the Kodak logo. > 3) Which is best to use RC or fiber? You want something that is going to make good contact when contact printing. Glossy RC will go firmly in contact when it is time to print. > 4) Any good starting exposures for brands of paper you might be familiar > with? Ilford MGIV EI2 would be a good starting point. Cheers - george = Handmade Photographic Images - http://GLSmyth.com DRiP Investing - http://DRiPInvesting.org __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions
--- Katharine Thayer wrote: > Andrew Amundsen wrote: > > > > > 1) What brand of single weight photo paper has NO labeling on it's back? > > Kodak single-weight paper has no labeling on the back. Keep in mind that single weight paper is going to curl like mad. Cheers - george = Handmade Photographic Images - http://GLSmyth.com DRiP Investing - http://DRiPInvesting.org __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Does Pinhole-Discussion have an archive?
Thanks for the reply, Guillermo. And I agree about the earlier archive being easier to search than the more recent postings. I hope to combine the two sometime next year into a single archive similar to the earlier one. - Gregg On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 04:12 PM, Guillermo wrote: - Original Message - From: "Andrew Amundsen" ...how do we access the archives? Could someone post a link? Andrew: You will see a link to the DISCUSSION page, at the foot of each posting, go there and 3/4 down the page there is a link to archives. There are 2 categories of archived messages: those posted previous to 08/22/2000 and those posted after. The former are easier to search than the latter, unfortunately. Guillermo
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Does Pinhole-Discussion have an archive?
- Original Message - From: "Andrew Amundsen" > ...how do we access the archives? Could someone post a link? Andrew: You will see a link to the DISCUSSION page, at the foot of each posting, go there and 3/4 down the page there is a link to archives. There are 2 categories of archived messages: those posted previous to 08/22/2000 and those posted after. The former are easier to search than the latter, unfortunately. Guillermo
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions
Hi Andrew, Thank you for the kind comments. There will be more forums (or fora, for purists). To tell the truth, I'm looking forward to seeing the answer to your questions on which paper to use. I still have a box or two of Ilford Multigrade III RC matt, which was single-weight with no markings on the back. Ilford discontinued making matt RC when they brought out Multigrade IV. A loss for pinholers. RC paper has the advantage of not curling. Also, I've read that the fiber texture in the paper can affect the print. Tom - Original Message - From: "Andrew Amundsen" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:16 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions > Hi everyone, I am freshly inspired after this weekends pinhole forum, hosted > by Tom Miller and Bill Erikson, at the pARTs gallery in Minneapolis. Very > nice job, hope to see more like it. > > I'm interested in trying paper negative work with pinhole. So I have a > couple quick questions for those with paper negative experience: > > 1) What brand of single weight photo paper has NO labeling on it's back? > > 2) Does the Kodak name, from the back, show through on the final print when > you print with that brand? or is it faint enough not to? > > 3) Which is best to use RC or fiber? > > 4) Any good starting exposures for brands of paper you might be familiar > with? > > Well that will give me a good start, thanks for any help you can pass on! > > Sincerly, Andrew Amundsen > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions
Andrew Amundsen wrote: > > 1) What brand of single weight photo paper has NO labeling on it's back? Kodak single-weight paper has no labeling on the back. Katharine Thayer
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions
Thanks for the comment. I thought it was good too. Most folks like Ilford paper. No, the kodak printing doesn't always come through, but you never can tell. most folks use an ISo of 5 for starters. I've always used RC. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Amundsen" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:16 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions > Hi everyone, I am freshly inspired after this weekends pinhole forum, hosted > by Tom Miller and Bill Erikson, at the pARTs gallery in Minneapolis. Very > nice job, hope to see more like it. > > I'm interested in trying paper negative work with pinhole. So I have a > couple quick questions for those with paper negative experience: > > 1) What brand of single weight photo paper has NO labeling on it's back? > > 2) Does the Kodak name, from the back, show through on the final print when > you print with that brand? or is it faint enough not to? > > 3) Which is best to use RC or fiber? > > 4) Any good starting exposures for brands of paper you might be familiar > with? > > Well that will give me a good start, thanks for any help you can pass on! > > Sincerly, Andrew Amundsen > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
[pinhole-discussion] Does Pinhole-Discussion have an archive?
...how do we access the archives? Could someone post a link? Thanks so much, Andrew Amundsen
[pinhole-discussion] Paper negative questions
Hi everyone, I am freshly inspired after this weekends pinhole forum, hosted by Tom Miller and Bill Erikson, at the pARTs gallery in Minneapolis. Very nice job, hope to see more like it. I'm interested in trying paper negative work with pinhole. So I have a couple quick questions for those with paper negative experience: 1) What brand of single weight photo paper has NO labeling on it's back? 2) Does the Kodak name, from the back, show through on the final print when you print with that brand? or is it faint enough not to? 3) Which is best to use RC or fiber? 4) Any good starting exposures for brands of paper you might be familiar with? Well that will give me a good start, thanks for any help you can pass on! Sincerly, Andrew Amundsen
Re: [pinhole-discussion] large format ortho
Thought of another way of preflashing ortho film. It may be possible to pre-flash the film just prior to taking a picture. If one were to hold something like a grey card just in-front of the camera and move it around it should evenly pre-flash the film. The trick would be figuring out how long to expose it. I think it would be possible with an exposure meter. You would have to set it to a higher ASA - something like 4 stops higher than what the film is normally shot at. If normally shot at 6 ASA meter the grey card at something like 100 asa and use that indicated exposure to flash the film. It would take some experimentation to figure out what works with your film and your developer. This does away with having to use an enlarger or some other light source. Gord On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Gordon J. Holtslander wrote: > Hi: > > By providing a longer range and shorter exposure times, preflashing the > film allows ortho to record shadow details much more effecctively. > > > I use an enlarger, and an exposure timer to do this. Its just about the > only thing I use an enlarger for now :) > > I set the enlarger so that it will expose an area larger than the film I > use. I stop it down. > > To determine the flash duration I did a series of test exposures until I > found the longest exposure that would NOT fog the film once it was > developed. > > With my setup and developer its around 12 seconds. > > If you don't have an enlarger you may be able to do something like turn on > a very dim light - a 7 watt nightlight or something like that for a few > seconds. > > You essentially have to be able to illuminate the film under a very low > light level for an accurate amount of time. > > The amount of time is determined by finding the longest exposure the film > can tolerate without fogging. > > If you don't have a really accurate timer, you would have to use a dimmer > light source and expose it longer. > > I could probably get away without using my timer, and use my wrist watch, > or count to 10 etc. (all of this can be done under safelight) > > The film acts like it has a threshold of exposure. No latent image will > be formed until the exposure level has surpassed this theshold. > > For pinhole this means that while taking the picture, some time is spent > simply getting past the threshold without recording any image information. > If this theshold is surpassed prior to exposure (by pre-flashing) the > exposure times will be shorter - resulting in a "faster" film. > > > > On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Ricardo Wildberger Lisboa wrote: > > > Hi Gord, > > > > Just to clarify it, how do you pre flash these filmes ? I mean, what light > > source, how long exposure, etc. Thanks, > > > > Ric. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Gordon J. Holtslander" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:32 PM > > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] large format ortho > > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > I use 8x10 ortho to make big negatives. I mostly print cyanotype though. > > > The key is using a very low contrast developer. > > > > > > People have had success using a highly diluted print developer - such as > > > dektol, selectol sprint etc. diluted (10:1 to 30:1). > > > > > > The ASA of the film is around 6 with these developers. > > > > > > I find these are still too contrasty with the ortho film I use (kpgraphics > > > CGP) > > > > > > A very good low contrast developer formulated specifically for producing > > > low contrast negatives from ortho film is Dave Soemarko's LC-1 developer > > > > > > http://members.aol.com/fotodave/Articles/LC-1.html > > > > > > This developer is not commerically made - you must mix it yourself. > > > > > > By varying the dilution and mix its possible to control the contrast > > > effectively. > > > > > > LC-1 does result in a significant speed loss though - film processed in > > > LC-1 has an ASA of 1. > > > > > > This does become an issue with very large format cameras, if your pinhole > > > is small, the f stop is so small that the expsosure time can stretch to > > > hours. > > > > > > You might try seeing how large of a pinhole you can tolerate (and its > > > fuzziness) before you start shooting 16 x 20 > > > > > > I think an XTOL ascorbic acid based developer at a low pH seems to work > > > better > > > > > > See Mytol http://www.jackspcs.com/mytol.htm > > > > > > Chemical Amount Units > > > > > > > > > Distilled Water 750 ml > > > Sodium Sulfite 60 g > > > Sodium Metaborate 4 g > > > Sodium Ascorbate 13 g > > > Phenidone 0.15 g > > > Sodium Metabisulfite 3 g > > > Distilled water to make 1000 ml > > > > > > This formula mixed without the alkali agent (Sodium Metaborate) may work > > better. > > > > > > I also find that pre-flashing the film at an exposure just less than > > > something that would fog the film extends the range and sensitivity of > > > the film. > > > > > > Testing with a Stouffer step tablet I'm able to get an 18 step negative. > > > Using a similar developer to
