Author Topic: Going full Analog (Read 3811 times)

SLVR · « **on:** July 10, 2017, 04:48:04 PM »

So I mentioned it in the weekend thread but I figured I'd open a discussion about it.

I've sold my film scanner and I'm going to be wet printing all of the keepers from my rolls. It's going to be a lot of work but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

More and more I start to think how nice it would be to have prints for all of the images that I'm scanning and uploading online. Something that will stand the test of time a little better than 1's and 0's.

I'm going to be looking for a flatbed scanner to scan my prints. My combo has horrible scan quality unfortunately.

So no color from me for quite some time!

Blaxton · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2017, 04:50:32 PM »

Bravo. I look forward to seeing some of your prints and I am curious as to which scanner you choose.

chris667 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2017, 06:02:08 PM »

I respect that! Can't wait to get into the darkroom again. I have decided I'm going to make books of small prints, and the occasional great big print.

SLVR · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2017, 06:32:48 PM »

Hoping to pick up an epson V500,550,600,700 for a deal. Theres a V500 for $30 in the classifieds but its a little over 2 hours away one way. Not thinking its worth it to make the trip!

Its a little overwhelming but I think I'll get faster at it over time. Plus theres a lot of time between rolls for me so it will give me something to do in the evenings

Jeff Warden · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:16:39 PM »

Excellent! You'll have fun and get much better at printing. Wet printing your keepers is a good idea. I do the same and have piles of prints that I enjoy leafing through from time to time.

Those Epsons are pretty good at scanning negatives too, you know. :-)

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:31:41 PM »

I can really understand your motivation and definitely root for it.
When you work all day pushing electrons with a stick, it feels good to finally do something in the real world that's not reliant on super sophisticated tech.

Scanner wise, I still have my good old Epson 4490. And for quick negative scans I have one of those cheap 5mpx film scanners. So far, it's the best combo I've had even though I would like to scan bigger negs without a hassle (the 4490 only lets you scan 6x12, so strips of 3 images are scanned in two shots and 4x5 frames need stitching and a custom made holder I built...

SLVR · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:51:59 PM »

Looks like I'll be scooping up a V700 tonight so I'll have a V700 again. It was a great scanner when I had it and yes, I should be able to scan negatives in the event that I get lazy!

Once I get it up and running I'll post up some scans of the latest prints!

SLVR · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2017, 04:09:11 AM »

still working out the kinks but here's the initial few prints. I was expecting this warmtone developer to tone the paper a lot more than it is. Am I doing something wrong? It looks NOTHING like warmtone paper in terms of the warmth of the paper itself.

KevinAllan · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2017, 07:31:35 AM »

Quote from: SLVR on July 11, 2017, 04:09:11 AM

still working out the kinks but here's the initial few prints. I was expecting this warmtone developer to tone the paper a lot more than it is. Am I doing something wrong? It looks NOTHING like warmtone paper in terms of the warmth of the paper itself.

Recently I did an exercise to print 20 versions of the same image to compare the results using different combinations of:

- neutral tone paper
- warm tone paper
- neutral developer
- warm tone developer
- selenium toner
- sepia toner

The results can be seen here :
https://kevinthephotographer.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/toning-darkroom-prints/

They might help you to determine how to get the print characteristics you seek.

Incidentally the prints were scanned with a V700 - and getting the scanned print to look the same as the actual print can be tricky.

Jeff Warden · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2017, 01:20:35 PM »

Quote from: KevinAllan on July 11, 2017, 07:31:35 AM

The results can be seen here :
https://kevinthephotographer.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/toning-darkroom-prints/

Thanks Kevin, I appreciate the article! (And then I lost another half hour bouncing to David Kirby's site.)

I've been experimenting with sepia toning recently after a few years of mainly using selenium and I'm enjoying the different colors. I'm looking forward to trying split toning.

SLVR · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2017, 03:26:02 PM »

Thanks for the article Kevin. I'll have to look into toning perhaps. I was hoping to avoid it because my darkroom doesn't have the best ventilation. I do have a pretty large supply of neutral paper and I much prefer the look of the warm tone paper to the naked eye. There's just something about seeing the print on a tinted paper that I prefer.

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2017, 09:21:24 PM »

I must admit that a totally neutral base is not something for every picture...

If you want to do a softer type of toning, you can try the Berg Colorvir system. While it doesn't increase the archival qualities of the print, it does some pretty wild things to the color without that sulfide smell you get from sepia toners.

SLVR · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2017, 09:51:25 PM »

I hadnt known about these toners. Looks like they are hard to come by though?

Looking back now I've just been doing my developer at 1 min, 30sec stop, and 1-2 min fix for my prints and everything seemed to be ok but looking at the data sheet for the ilford warmtone developer I'm using it seems to require 2 min of developing time.

I knew it always seemed weird that people like Kevin were using times like 7 sec for his prints. I've always been in the 20sec to 1 min range for mine, probably because of the decreased development time. Also I found that grade 2 was always too contrasty. I'll do another printing session tonight and give it a try with the 2 min development time. Perhaps the prints will tone a bit more with the extended time and look closer to what I want.

If not then once I run out of paper I'll just restock with warmtone paper from the beginning!

Francois · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2017, 10:53:40 PM »

The fun thing with papers is that development is pretty much self terminating, so you can't overdevelop.
For RC paper, the regular development time is 60 seconds. But after 90 seconds, nothing happens.

Underdevelopment will mostly affect the maximum density of the paper, something that can lead to either too long exposures, unwarranted grade changes and general impossibility to replicate a print.

The grade of the paper to use will also be affected by the enlarger as condenser enlargers produce more contrasty prints by design.
Also, matte paper often seems to need more contrast while glossy seems to need less.
The light you show the prints under also has a huge effect on perceived contrast...

SLVR · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2017, 03:58:27 PM »

so last night the 2 min rather than the 1 min definitely made a difference in the overall tone of the paper. Creamier whites that have that pre flashed look to them when compared to neutral paper that had been developed for only 1 min.

I think that overall my tones were nicer in these prints also. Only thing is I don't like waiting that extra minute to see my print!!

Francois · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2017, 10:36:49 PM »

That's what RC is for

An old trick to increase development is to swab some warm developer on some zones of the paper. This increases development locally, a handy trick for snow scenes I've been told.

SLVR · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2017, 03:26:25 AM »

I've got a kodak book that talks of a variation of stand developing but with a print for such scenes

KevinAllan · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2017, 09:18:30 PM »

Quote from: SLVR on July 11, 2017, 03:26:02 PM

Thanks for the article Kevin. I'll have to look into toning perhaps. I was hoping to avoid it because my darkroom doesn't have the best ventilation.

My darkroom has a door to the outside of the house, so I just open that when I'm toning. You could even do the toning outside if you have a yard or garden since it doesn't need to be done in darkness (assuming that you do the toning as a separate session to the original printing.)

KevinAllan · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2017, 09:22:47 PM »

Quote from: SLVR on July 11, 2017, 09:51:25 PM

I knew it always seemed weird that people like Kevin were using times like 7 sec for his prints. I've always been in the 20sec to 1 min range for mine

The prints referenced in the blog post, were only 5" by 3.5", hence the enlarger head was very close to the baseboard, resulting in a short exposure time.
If I wanted to do dodging and burning, then I would certainly aim for a longer exposure to make the timing of the dodging and burning less critical.

Francois · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2017, 02:16:12 PM »

Toning can definitely be done outside. Even outside, the smell of sepia toner can be overwhelming!

SLVR · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2017, 02:50:00 PM »

never thought to do this. If I ever get to experiment with it I'll give it a try outside.

Francois · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2017, 08:43:23 PM »

I know the few times I did Sepia, it was using the Kodak two part kit. This thing's smell was nasty. It's a sulphide toner and you know it pretty darn fast!
The smell was as strong as the one that came out of the old Union Carbide plant in Montreal-Est when I was a kid.
If it wasn't for the low fence, the neighbors would have definitely wondered what the heck I was cooking-up...

SLVR · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2017, 02:26:46 AM »

67 holder came in. Looking forward to doing some 67 prints. The 80 rodagon seems to cover 67 fine too to my luck

Francois · « **Reply #23 on:** July 17, 2017, 02:51:19 PM »

That's fantastic news!
I would have expected that a lens somewhere in the 90-100mm would have been required for this format, but sometimes we have nice surprised. Like on my 4x5 enlarger that has a 135mm Schneider that covers the format beautifully.

SLVR · « **Reply #24 on:** July 17, 2017, 10:11:20 PM »

I definitely saw vignetting when I had the 35mm condenser in but as soon as I put the 67 condenser in it was perfect. Might see some falloff in the print but to the naked eye I can't see any huge issues.

Hopefully I'll be able to print something tonight!

Francois · « **Reply #25 on:** July 18, 2017, 02:19:21 PM »

The 35mm condenser definitely isn't up to the task with sure how a large negative.
But you should be ok with that lens.

SLVR · « **Reply #26 on:** July 18, 2017, 03:32:19 PM »

Works well.

Francois · « **Reply #27 on:** July 18, 2017, 03:48:03 PM »

Boy, I haven't seen this body type on Civics since the early 1990's!
These were all the rage when I was in college... and I didn't have one

SLVR · « **Reply #28 on:** July 18, 2017, 04:26:20 PM »

This is one of the reasons why I've been shooting less. Spending time wrenching on the civic. But its really fun and satisfying to drive it out and go shooting at the same time

Francois · « **Reply #29 on:** July 18, 2017, 10:42:27 PM »

So that's your new toy!
Nice!
I don't know about yours but as I remember them they were pretty darn fast straight out of the factory.

SLVR · « **Reply #30 on:** July 19, 2017, 02:29:35 AM »

It's far from fast but if I can sell this M4 it will give me a decent amount of funds towards swapping out the engine with something quicker.

Francois · « **Reply #31 on:** July 19, 2017, 02:39:34 PM »

So I guess you want to add some VTEC goodness to the small package?

SLVR · « **Reply #32 on:** July 19, 2017, 06:25:51 PM »

I'll likely go about swapping in a B20 from a CRV. Should bump me up an extra 50 horses over what I have now with a bunch more torque. It will be non vtec. But in the future I could put a Vtec head on it and break 200hp with that setup. so thats the plan for future.

A light car with around 225 horsepower will be more than enough to have some fun.

Francois · « **Reply #33 on:** July 19, 2017, 09:47:00 PM »

That's definitely going to be plenty for some time.
Then, there's adding boost. I was watching hotrod garage the other day and they were putting a vortec supercharger on an old cop car that had a body swap from an old ford f-100 pickup... long story. But anyways, they were explaining that this supercharger is easier to install than a turbo because it requires less plumbing and easier than another type of supercharger simply because it doesn't mount directly on the top of the intake manifold. Could be an option for your civic...

And then, there's always the roadkill way of doing it... they have an old rust bucket datsun in which they fit an engine from a ford mustang fox body model and a turbo from a diesel truck that sticks through a hole in the hood... ugly but the thing hauls... it snaps transmissions like toothpicks!