OntheRez wrote:
Every so often I get slightly wistful for "real" B&W. Like when I see a Hasselblad for $250 Then I follow a thread like this and remember just how much gear and work it takes to get a print. That calms me right down. Correct me, but are there even a dozen places to buy flim anymore, particularly something in the 6x6 format?
Many places to buy 120 film from - and in a decent variety. You can get them from the usual large online photo suppliers and even smaller photo stores. In fact, Kodak Alaris now wants to bring back its Ektachrome slide film also in 120 format after it is already available in 35 mm format. I see as a bigger limitation the silver gelatin paper to buy - only a very limited variety exists these days. Glad Ilford still makes them!
Regarding work, yes, to make a silver gelatin print takes more physical work than a simple inkjet print requires. To me the final result counts, and every time the silver gelatin print looks superior than an inkjet print in B&W - worthwhile the effort.
Another print I made a few days ago. Also printed from cropped 35 mm FP4+ negative on 11x14" Ilford MGIV RC DE paper, matted and framed 16x20". Beseler 45M enlarger with Wollensak 50 mm enlarger lens. Development in Dektol.
pasblues wrote:
A wash should be a flowing wash, not a static wash. Leave the water flow ON - it doesn't have to be gushing but the water needs to change out. I've never seen a wash that was static.
Fill up the area the print is in, let equilibrium do its thing, empty and refill. Initially read about it in a magazine.
OntheRez wrote:
Every so often I get slightly wistful for "real" B&W. Like when I see a Hasselblad for $250 Then I follow a thread like this and remember just how much gear and work it takes to get a print. That calms me right down. Correct me, but are there even a dozen places to buy flim anymore, particularly something in the 6x6 format?
I ordered film from NYC anyway, even color print. I could have bought it locally, but it was cheaper from B&H or adorama, and the Korean etc writing was cool
Idk if I could get B&W locally really, at least pan-f, anyway. Camera stores 45-60 min. away and I didn't really like them much, anyway. So, I think you can still get film from these stores, so it'd be the same, for me.
Yeah, Idk if I want the hassle of a darkroom, but I haven't been able to get as good of prints off digital. It's a lot easier, though, playing with a slider bar to change contrast, instead of re-printing using a different paper grade or something.
AmbientMike wrote:
Fill up the area the print is in, let equilibrium do its thing, empty and refill. Initially read about it in a magazine.
Uses less water.
I actually personally did it - for decades. The way it was done always was to keep water flowing to continually replenish the wash. It didn't have to be a gushing wash but the water had to replenish, not just soak the print. In a pinch, I suppose you could let it soak and then empty and refill but we never did it that way in any darkroom I was ever in - from the early days of my high school darkroom to the professional darkrooms I worked in later decades.
Hypo clearing agent would speed up the wash so hypo was commonly used when we had it available.
RC printing changed things later on as speed became a factor. Fiber based papers were considered - rightly so - more archival. Also, RC paper dried flat easily whereas fiber based paper had to be ironed or pressed in a hot dryer with a squeegee.
One would never soak paper too long because the fiber based papers had a limit to how long you would want to leave them soaked - too long and the emulsion would slough off. Too short or not cycled enough and the fixer wouldn't wash off enough and you would get a print that yellowed from clinging fixer.
AmbientMike wrote:
I ordered film from NYC anyway, even color print. I could have bought it locally, but it was cheaper from B&H or adorama, and the Korean etc writing was cool
Idk if I could get B&W locally really, at least pan-f, anyway. Camera stores 45-60 min. away and I didn't really like them much, anyway. So, I think you can still get film from these stores, so it'd be the same, for me.
Yeah, Idk if I want the hassle of a darkroom, but I haven't been able to get as good of prints off digital. It's a lot easier, though, playing with a slider bar to change contrast, instead of re-printing using a different paper grade or something.
B/W printing is a craft that takes a lot of skill and experience eventually to get really good at it. Ansel Adams would not have been as successful had it not been for his darkroom guy.
There's a whole set of tools for printing and few people these days would care about preserving the artistry involved. Contrast was dialed in with filters of varying degrees but also different papers yielded different looks and properties, as did different types of film. The skill of dodging and burning, choosing contrast interpretations - on top of the skill of just exposing the film in the first place - was a whole process of thinking and learning to see differences between highlights and shadows and using this knowledge to interpret an image to the liking of the photographer. The Zone System was a whole thing in and of itself.
Another print I made a few days ago. Also printed from cropped 35 mm FP4+ negative on 11x14" Ilford MGIV RC DE paper, matted and framed 16x20". Beseler 45M enlarger with Wollensak 50 mm enlarger lens. Development in Dektol.
"One would never soak paper too long because the fiber based papers had a limit to how long you would want to leave them soaked - too long and the emulsion would slough off. Too short or not cycled enough and the fixer wouldn't wash off enough and you would get a print that yellowed from clinging fixer."
Even with Hypo Clearing Agent, which was, and is, simply a must for fiber based papers, an hour long wash in a Zone VI Archival Print Washer was not out of the question. Never had any emulsion slough off ever, but I never left anything soaking overnight.
"Contrast was dialed in with filters of varying degrees but also different papers yielded different looks and properties, as did different types of film. The skill of dodging and burning, choosing contrast interpretations..."
On Polycontrast papers, yes, filters ranging from mild yellow to strong magenta changed the contrast of the paper. Started out using a set of Kodak filters under the lens, then moved to using Beseler gel filters in the drawer above the lens and then finally graduated to dialing in the filters using the dichroic color head, which was the easiest, particularly when you were using different contrast grades for different parts of the image. For instance, it was often necessary to burn in an area but you'd want to burn at a lower contrast to make the burning feel more natural. Or conversely, you might dodge using a #4 filter under the lens to both hold back light and increase the contrast in a less exposed shadow area.
Then, if you wanted to get really involved, and this was mostly used in making black and white internegs from color transparencies, you'd make a contrast mask using Kodak Pan Masking Film - long discontinued - to put density into the highlights of the color slide, thereby lowering the contrast and compensating for the contrast bump that an extra generation would impart. And then, if you wanted to get really creative, since it was PAN Masking Film, you could make your masked using color filters, just as you would for shooting, and be able to automatically make color based analog film masks.
Of course all of these techniques seem rather quaint after you've been using Photoshop for a couple of decades, but it's nice to know that we actually had a lot of control back then if you were willing to dig a little.
Peter Figen wrote:
"One would never soak paper too long because the fiber based papers had a limit to how long you would want to leave them soaked - too long and the emulsion would slough off. Too short or not cycled enough and the fixer wouldn't wash off enough and you would get a print that yellowed from clinging fixer."
Even with Hypo Clearing Agent, which was, and is, simply a must for fiber based papers, an hour long wash in a Zone VI Archival Print Washer was not out of the question. Never had any emulsion slough off ever, but I never left anything soaking overnight.
Hypo was used for fiber based papers - and no, you did not need to wash for an hour. The directions are to rinse the print with water for a minute, then 2-3 minutes in hypo (with agitation), then 10-20 minutes running water wash, depending on if it was single or double weight paper. The directions are on the package of Hypo
Yeah, the only reason I know about the emulsion slough off is because I did it a few times back when I was in high school...staying up till the wee hours of the morning in my home darkroom printing and then letting the prints stay in the washing too long because I went to bed...or having to make prints in the school darkroom, then run to class and leave my prints in the wash, etc. It's just a side-note for people who may not realize that is something that could happen.
Peter Figen wrote:
On Polycontrast papers, yes, filters ranging from mild yellow to strong magenta changed the contrast of the paper. Started out using a set of Kodak filters under the lens, then moved to using Beseler gel filters in the drawer above the lens and then finally graduated to dialing in the filters using the dichroic color head, which was the easiest, particularly when you were using different contrast grades for different parts of the image. For instance, it was often necessary to burn in an area but you'd want to burn at a lower contrast to make the burning feel more natural. Or conversely, you might dodge using a #4 filter under the lens to both hold back light and increase the contrast in a less exposed shadow area.
The polycontrast papers were popular, I think, because of their versatility like this. I don't know that I ever would have gotten so far into the burn process as to change the filter to do burning or dodging at a different contrast but I don't remember. You don't have a lot of time to expose the paper - it's only seconds, depending on the aperture of the enlarger lens you use. I think probably the mad dogs of the darkroom got really, really into these intricacies.
There were tools - remember the little wands with the red filters in different shapes? - or you could use your hands. At the newspaper, we had to work fast and dirty a LOT. It was bad enough that we were souping film, drying, cutting, sleeving and marking it - on deadline - so making a print was something you often had only minutes to do if it was hitting deadline.
I don't remember now - but I could probably touch base with a colleague who would remember - if we were mostly using set-contrast papers. I just seem to remember using the filter dials on the enlarger so I'm tending to think polycontrast.
The main lab guy liked to do his personal stuff on super high contrast paper so I think he kept his personal stash of high contrast papers there. Meh, it was a personal preference.
I experimented a LOT - and used all kinds of various papers and toners to get different looks.
Honestly, for a hobby or serious artist, film/darkroom work is kind of a zen thing to do. It's deeply satisfying and perhaps could be considered a labor of love to produce these very limited pieces of work - especially if fiber base, archival techniques are used. I mean, look at some of the antique photographs that exist out there and try not to fall in love. Okay, nerdy. But what are we anyway, except a bit nerdy?
If you were making small prints and short exposure times were an issue, you could or can always put a neutral density filter above the lens, or, if you've got a color head, dial in ND with the color controls. For larger prints there was never an issue with short exposure times.
I have a few images, and one in particular, a portrait of Willie Dixon that I shot in '86 here in L.A. where a darkroom print, even for a very experienced and very good printer like myself, took three or four hours to pull one good print, and then that might be it for the day, as the burning was so crucial. Once I drum scanned that and did the burning in Ps, I output a new T-Max LVT neg and was able to put that in the enlarger and make a final print in about twenty minutes with just a touch of burning. Then, when Museo came out with their Silver Rag, I pretty much never went in the darkroom again. Everyone who looks at them, even up close, thinks they are darkroom prints, except they have no spots. Ha. If you could still get Forté PolyWarmTone Semi-Matte paper, I'd still be printing, but you can't and that's just the way it is. Anyone who happens to be in L.A. is welcome to come by my studio and see how awful those inkjet prints look, and, if you're lucky, get a demo on how a drum scanner actually works.
For the news guys posting here, I would never expect you to have used any advanced darkroom techniques. I did that for a while way back when and you just cranked it out and handed it over to the halftone guys as quick as you could. No time for subtleties and no need either.
Awww, yeah, I forgot about dust spots...what a pain. Every detail had to be super clean. I was pretty good with the spotting brush but you sure as heck wouldn't want to do a bunch of them. And scratches, f'getta 'bout it.
One thing that came about eventually was the silver situation...and silver recovery was something that was concerning with large labs. For home darkrooms these days, also, just the how-to of dumping toxic chemicals.
I'm still pretty good with a spotting brush and even an etching knife. Remember those? Another bygone Kodak product. I remember going into Don Hartman's framing shop in Monterey when I lived there and seeing entire Adams' shows being framed up and getting an up close and personal look at his 30x40 and 40x50 prints. The spotting on them was pretty atrocious, at least by my standards. As long as we're on the nostalgia train, the first "retouching" I learned, apart from spotting, was using actual retouching pencils on the receiving side of the negative. That was one of the differences between amateur and professional film - the pro film would readily take retouching with the pencil. Pretty hard to do since you were working in an inverted world of the negative but pretty effective. And etching fiber based prints was very effective as well to remove medium and dark spots. Now there's a lost art - scraping away the emulsion.
Peter Figen wrote:
... Now there's a lost art - scraping away the emulsion.
And they say that 'photoshopping' is a recent phenomenon. But those who say that are ignorant of the techniques and skills of professional retouchers who worked for photographers for over a hundred years. There are plenty of old books on the subject from the early part of last century (i collect such books).
Well, Photoshop is pushing thirty year old now, so it's not that new anymore. I think that learning and knowing all those techniques I described, which I'm sure are covered in the books you collect, have only helped me in that transition to doing most of that digitally. I mean, how many people have done an analog unsharp mask, the way they used to do for offset lithography? I've read about how it was done but never had the opportunity to do it myself. Now it's just a filter with a name that seems to say the opposite of what it really does. But, what's going on behind the scenes in Ps, I believe, is pretty close to the analog version, hence the name.
pasblues wrote:
I actually personally did it - for decades. The way it was done always was to keep water flowing to continually replenish the wash. It didn't have to be a gushing wash but the water had to replenish, not just soak the print. In a pinch, I suppose you could let it soak and then empty and refill but we never did it that way in any darkroom I was ever in - from the early days of my high school darkroom to the professional darkrooms I worked in later decades.
Hypo clearing agent would speed up the wash so hypo was commonly used when we had it available.
RC printing changed things later on as speed became a factor. Fiber based papers were considered - rightly so - more archival. Also, RC paper dried flat easily whereas fiber based paper had to be ironed or pressed in a hot dryer with a squeegee.
One would never soak paper too long because the fiber based papers had a limit to how long you would want to leave them soaked - too long and the emulsion would slough off. Too short or not cycled enough and the fixer wouldn't wash off enough and you would get a print that yellowed from clinging fixer. ...Show more →
I read about it in Darkroom and creative Camera techniques magazine. I'd often soak my prints for hours, FB paper, I suppose I should go look at them again, to make sure, but I never had any trouble.
I think they were talking about leaving the print in for few minutes, until equilibrium was reached, then emptying the water, to save water.
AmbientMike wrote:
I read about it in Darkroom and creative Camera techniques magazine. I'd often soak my prints for hours, FB paper, I suppose I should go look at them again, to make sure, but I never had any trouble.
I think they were talking about leaving the print in for few minutes, until equilibrium was reached, then emptying the water, to save water.
That might be what people would have to do in a pinch where water wasn't as easily available or water conservation efforts were critical. I have to emphasize, again, that we aren't talking about hosing down the prints with a gush of water...it's a slow gentle flow. I think you can still buy water bath tanks.
I wouldn't soak fiber based prints for hours. It's not necessary at all, especially if you use hypo. See the link above that show the package of hypo with the directions on it.
JohnJ wrote:
And they say that 'photoshopping' is a recent phenomenon. But those who say that are ignorant of the techniques and skills of professional retouchers who worked for photographers for over a hundred years. There are plenty of old books on the subject from the early part of last century (i collect such books).
Unfortunately what is very hard to get these days are the retouching paints to erase for example dust spots on the silver gelatin prints. It was an art to do this right - there are some cool YouTube videos about this. I have some pens which do this job but since I can't mix the colors (grey-scales) accordingly, I rather avoid using them. Key is to have the negative as clean as possible and scratch-free.
AmbientMike wrote:
I read about it in Darkroom and creative Camera techniques magazine. I'd often soak my prints for hours, FB paper, I suppose I should go look at them again, to make sure, but I never had any trouble.
I think they were talking about leaving the print in for few minutes, until equilibrium was reached, then emptying the water, to save water.
My method after fixing:
RC-Paper: 2 minutes Hypo Wash, 2-3 minutes water rinse under the faucet
Fiber Paper: 3 minutes Hypo Wash, 5-7 minutes water rinse under the faucet
Don't forget to rinse also the back side (included in the rinsing times above) of the paper accordingly with this method. I am not using a print washer since I only focus on one single print at the time.
Not matted and framed yet, photo taken when the print was drying yesterday. Printed from cropped 35 mm FP4+ negative on 11x14" Ilford MGIV fiber paper. Beseler 45M enlarger with Wollensak 50 mm enlarger lens. Development in Dektol.
Then I follow a thread like this and remember just how much gear and work it takes to get a print. That calms me right down. Correct me, but are there even a dozen places to buy flim anymore, particularly something in the 6x6 format?
