120 Film paper backing symbols.

When I started to use a zero multi format pinhole camera for the first time, I had a brief moment of panic because I could not remember what the symbols on the backing paper indicated before the frame number. I had also forgotten that the whole family of 120 formats were represented. I had not used the little red window on the back of a camera since my childhood. Fortunately for me it did not take long for it to come back.

Makes of film shown FP4+, Fomapan, Adox.
Beginning of film. (start)

Remember that the frame number also indicates the center of the film you are about to expose so it is important to get this in the middle of the red window. If you repeatedly over run this by the time you get to the end of the film you will only have part of a frame left.

End of film (Finish)

With this in mind the following pictures show you what to expect with different makes of 120 film - not just for winding on but for winding off before you remove the film from the camera. Not sure why you would need to know this when your coming to the end of the film? logic dictates that you just keep winding until you feel the backing freeing it's self from the spool.




The top line of symbols are for cameras that use 6 x 4.5 negatives. The middle is for 6x6 negatives. The bottom for 6 x 7  and 6 x 9 negatives.

Light metering?

For years I wanted to obtain a Bronica and when I did it was a very happy day. The SQAi has done a lot of travelling over the years; in all sorts of weather and across many different terrains. It has let me down on a couple of occasions but I do not blame the camera, overall it has been a great bit of kit. It can be a pain literally on long treks as it is no light weight, even in its lightest configuration.

I have not always been happy with the camera. When I first had it I could not get used to the back to front image which was really frustrating at times. I was not happy with having to use a hand held light meter either. I know! why did I

purchase it in the first place? Boyhood dream of some day of owning one? It has taken sometime for its use to become second nature, but now that it has, my picture making has become more fluent.

Along the way, my light meter use has changed; with some experimenting, I have found that two readings is better than one over all, making white bland skies with monochrome film a thing of the past. I, like you, have tried to solve it by using black and white filters from yellow to red and graduated neutral density filters to name a few. All of which are now gathering dust some where. Really and truly all you need to do is take a second light reading. Of what? The brightest part of the scene which in most cases is the sky and the amount of time it takes to do this makes it a no brainer. In fact you could have taken several in the time it takes to read this.

An understanding of Ansel Adams zone system helps to produce better negatives.

The picture right give a rough idea on how it works.

I have metered skies that have been as much as six stops brighter. In these cases, would it mean shutting the lens down by three stops to allow for it? With a little bit of help from the zone system you may only need to allow one stop to improve the detail in the sky, this would lead to better detailed negatives. The extra information would lead to more easily produced photographs.

Yes you can bracket your exposures which is a good way of learning what works best for you but as a long term method it is a waste of film. The idea is to know what works so you can get it right first time.

On average I have found that the skies in my pictures are about two to three F numbers brighter, meaning a slight adjustment to the exposure before pressing the shutter will produce more detail in the sky on the processed negative, without making the main part of the image too dark. When it comes to printing, whether burning in or holding back, depends on which method you prefer to use in the darkroom. My working method leads me to add light (burn in) more often than take it away (hold back). The sky is not always the brightest part of the picture, I'm using it in this case because it is the most common complaint with developed negatives and to keep my explanation simple.

The following pictures show what happen when the sky is taken into account:

120 format Film FP4+, 6x6 negative,
 Developed in ID11 ,
Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss,
 Developed in Ilford multigrade.

This picture was metered for the piper. I did not take a second reading for the sky. I have been unable to burn the sky in hence the white out so to speak.

120 format film FP4+, 125 ISO, 6x6 negative
Developed in Ilford multigrade developer
printed on multigrade RC gloss.

With this picture I closed the aperture down by one F number to allow for the sky. For example from F.8 to F.11. As you can see the clouds have been picked out. With a bit of burning in (adding light) The sky would have more contrast therefore stand out.

120 format Fomapan 100 ISO, 6x6 negative,
Developed in RO9, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC
gloss, Developed in Moersch 6 Blue.

This is a badly scanned photograph but it does illustrate how well the clouds stand out.

It was a difficult scene to meter. The lighting was changing quickly. The light reading for the sky was indicating a difference of three F numbers in brightness more than the overall reading.  In the end I only shut the lens down by one F number. It is a straight print without any burning in.

FADU 2014

The year book is out.

Hopefully this is the start of a new era of year books from the film anddarkroom users forum (FADU). Earlier in the year Ian a member of FADU expressed his desire to have the year book started again and enquired if any of the other members would be interested in taking part. To his surprise there was a ground swell of enthusiasm for it to be reinstated. A boost to its reincarnation was Les Mclean's offer to curate and edit the book on behalf of the members.

This is the first book since Dave Miller the forums owner bowed out of producing the book back in 2012. There have been a number of calls by different members to get it going again but were not able to find anyone who had the time to get it off the ground. One of the main differences is that a number of members have gotten together to form a group to over see the submission process for the year book.

What makes this year book different from others, and the forum for that matter, is it's strict adherence to all pictures being scanned from photographs. Likewise for a picture to be included in the book, each associate was allowed to submit up to four photographs no larger than 8 x 10 in size. To be mailed to the submissions member no later than the end of October. They were then sent on altogether to Les Mclean for editing.

Another good thing about the submission process for the book was any member no matter what his or her level of experience, was invited to take part. I have to add that FADU is a very friendly welcoming forum who's members are always very willing to share their knowledge no matter who or where you are in your analogue journey.

So to the 2014 edition of the year book, i have to say there is a wonderful selection of photographs reproduced in the book. In the end, nineteen FADU supporters provided work for inclusion in the book. Not as diverse as previous years editions but a good number to start things going again. Of the seventy six photograph’s entered forty have been chosen. Representing all genre of photography.

Thanks goes to all the members who helped to make it a reality and a special thanks to Les McLean for taking on the editorial role. I think his involvement gave the project the impetus it needed to make it a reality. 

The Monochrome print and the colour enlarger.

Many years ago I was in a position to purchase a medium format film camera. This led to a complication in the darkroom in that my then current enlarger was for only 35mm film. An extra expense I had not budgeted for! At that time multigrade headed enlargers were quite expensive second hand and a bit thin on the ground. By chance 'the other half' noticed an ad in the local paper, it was for a medium format colour enlarger that came with some other bits to do with colour printing. I had not considered that a colour enlarger maybe just as good. The person I spoke to did not know what size negatives it took. So going to have a look was a gamble but then I only had to go round the corner. To my surprise it was all in mint condition and the enlarger would deal with negative sizes up to 6 x 7 - I was hooked! Apparently the seller had only used it a few times and decided to go digital. We struck a deal and the rest as they say is history.

Once the enlarger was home I dismantled it and gave it a good clean and checked it was all in good working order, not that I expected to find a problem. The big surprise was how dusty the inside was. It was gently cleaned with a soft damp cloth and wiped dry so as not to leave any residue marks. 

The next thing I needed to know was how to set the filters values for use with black and white multigrade papers. I chatted to a friend who pointed me in the right direction. After a bit of digging in the library I came up with a number of values for different makes of enlarger my one included. I thought the values should all be the same. But have discovered that the values are a suggested starting point. I have a set of multigrade filters that I used with my other enlarger at least now I will not have to check them for dust.

 There is a lot of speculation on the subject of using colour enlargers with multigrade papers. They split into two camps - the purists that say the multigrade filters only give the papers true contrast and people like me who check things out for themselves. I am at an advantage in that I have used both methods. Personally I have not noticed a difference but then I have not done a like for like comparison. Would I do one? The only way I can answer this is to say If I was to become dissatisfied with my results I may check to see if there was a difference.

 

The following are the values for Variable contrast papers for different makes of enlarger. The values are for the yellow and magenta filters the Cyan should be set to zero at all times.

Ilford settings
	1		2		3		4
Grade	Y	M	Y	M	Y	M	Y	M
0	150	25	92	16	75	12	110	16
0.5	110	33	74	22	55	16	73	22
1	85	42	56	28	42	21	57	28
1.5	70	55	46	37	35	27	46	36
2	55	70	36	46	27	35	36	46
2.5	42	80	28	53	21	40	28	53
3	30	90	26	60	15	45	20	60
3.5	18	112	12	75	9	56	12	74
4	6	135	4	90	3	67	4	90
4.5	0	195	0	130	0	97	0	130
5	0	200	0	130	0	97	0	130

The numbered columns represent different makes of enlarger

1. Dunco, Devere, Chomega, Beseler, Jobo, Kaiser, Omega, Paterson, LPL,Kodak.
2. Durst.
3. Meopta
4. Leitz
5. kodak
6. Durst

Kodak
Grade	5		6
	Y	M	Y	M
0	130	0	130	0
1	75	10	65	15
2	50	20	40	35
3	30	35	20	60
4	10	100	10	100
5	0	200	0	180

It has been many many years since I obtained my enlarger and the resulting prints I have produced with it I have been pleased with, so much so that I have not tested the accuracy of the enlargers filters with Ilfords set. If it ain’t broke why try to fix it!

Since writing this ilford have introduced multigrade five making the above tables relevant to multigrade 4 only.  when purchasing paper you should always check the manufactures tables that come with the paper for the latest filter values.

Print 1

Print 2

Print 4

Print 5

Technical data:

1. 35mm film, Agfa apx, iso 100, developed in ID11, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss. developed in multigrade.
2. 120 format FP4+ iso 125  , 6x6 negative, developed in ID11,  Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss. developed in multigrade
3.  120 format FP4+ iso 125, 6x6 neg, developed in ID11, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss. developed in multigrade.
4. 120 format fomapan 100, iso 100, 6x6 neg, ID11, Printed on Ilford FB gloss natural tone, developed in multigrade.

RO9 Rodinal film Develper

Having used up all the ID11 on the four film project and a backlog of exposed film building up, I thought it was about time I break out 'my something for the weekend' developer. I have always kept a backup developer for those occasions when I get caught out. This time I reached for a small bottle of RO9/ Rodinal. This little bottle has been on the shelf for years and in that time it has slowly turned to a rich red brown colour. This single shot developers keeping qualities are legendary. Silverprint has a forty year old bottle that they use from time to time! It still produces good quality negatives, so my 'youngster' should have no problems.

RO9/ Rodinal is not classed as a fine grain developer. It is famous for it's contrast control and flexibility. It's high acutance produces very sharp looking negatives a bit like sharpening a digital file in Photoshop.

It's character to a certain extent is governed by it's dilution.

For example:

• 1+10 will develop ortho film.

• 1+25 produces high contrast negatives and the most obvious grain.
• 1+50 Is the standard dilution producing crisp, normal contrast negatives, with slightly more grain than a fine grain developer.
• 1+75 and 1+100 will render high contrast negatives as normal.
• 1+300 can be used with document type films.

This is another developer I have not really used before so when I picked a Fomapan 100 ISO 100 to try it out on there is a little first use nerves! - How will the negatives look? How much is a little more grain than a fine grain developer? Is the time suggested going to produce well toned negatives? All questions that cannot be properly answered until the film has been fixed. My mantra is “keep it simple” and chose the standard dilution 1+50 as this comes close to the development time I use for ID11, which means I can compare these neg's against the ID11 negatives.

I used my long standing agitation method, although on the bottle it gives a different one. Agitate for the first thirty seconds and then tilt the tank at thirty second intervals.

I have used this developer with FP4+,Fomapan 100 and the Rollei 400s and again I'm having trouble with the latter. The other two have presented nicely toned negatives that have been easy to print. They are slightly more grainy than the ID11 negatives I am use to. But you would not think so when you look at the prints, I'm hard pressed to see a difference when comparing them side by side.

The pictures that appear with this article have been scanned from 9 x 12 prints produced on Kentmere variable contrast paper RC. I have found that grade two works better with these negatives than my usual grade three. This maybe down to its contrast controlling attributes. I have also used a couple of negative with the split grade method and again no appreciable difference. I do all my test prints on RC papers and then do my final prints on FB papers. Here again there has been no sign’s of increased grain.

All the pictures were developed in a mature Ilford multigrade developer - by mature I mean at least a month old, that has been replenished once or twice. I find that the prints take on a warmer tone than those first produced in the developer when fresh. It also takes longer for the first signs of the print to appear when fresh, about ten or so seconds and as it matures twenty seconds or so. This is not a method for the faint hearted as it can deplete very quickly in a matter of one print to the next. I have been caught out and ended up with a print that does not fully develop.

Overall I am very pleased with the negatives RO 9 presents. Yes they are more grainy but that does not translate to the final print. While I was looking into the use of RO9 Rodinal I came across a gentleman that has indicated that the original Rodinal could be used as a print developer and it was the exception to the rule in this respect. Does anyone know differently? 

Four Film Positive results

Printing

Figure 1

Before any of my negatives see the enlargers negative carrier they all get contact printed, for me this is the first indication of how they may print when enlarged and for some the only time they become a positive. It also serves as a reference.

The contact prints for the Adox and Rollei show under development, to what extent will only become clear when the test strips are produced. The Fomapan 100 and the FP4+ show as well toned. In the case of Ilfords FP4+ it may be over developed.

Once more I step into the the red world of the darkroom and the smell of chemicals. Only there are none! The developer, stop and fix need to be mixed a fresh. This is due to a problem with the fix turning the slot of the Nova processor black. Still not completely sure why!

   

Figure 2

 I set the light boxes height on the enlarger so it will  generate a print 9”x 12” in size. This means the the 6x6  negatives are going to be brutally cropped; maybe that  should be less dramatic and say 'creatively cropped' to  fit  a landscape format but also serves to increase the  magnification.

 I have set the enlarging lens to F8. All the negatives  will be exposed at this setting, it allows a comparison  to be made as to how over or under developed they  maybe with each other. In the past when F8 is set I  find that it gives me a time in the region of 30+  seconds exposure time. Which for me is about average.

Figure 3

I have set grade two and a half to start with, if this proves to be to hard I'll drop it to two. The paper being used is silverproof matt limited grade paper. Being limited does not mean it has not got a full range of tones. It also provides a certain look to the prints that I like.

The first negatives to be exposed are the Fomapan 100. Looking down the focus finder the film  has a regular fine grain making it quite easy to get it pin sharp. The test strips for these negatives are indicating an exposure of twenty one seconds. The picture of the  woods (Fg1) was to hard for the 2.5 grade I set, so reduced it to 2 for the second exposure. Figure 2  the shadow of the tree reflected in the  puddle. Printed straight, was a little flat, so I printed it a second time at grade 2 but burnt in (added exposure)  to the areas around the puddle to lift the puddle area.

Figure 4

Figure 5

The next negatives to be exposed were from the Adox film. Looking down the focus finder to sharpen these negatives brought a smile  as it looked like someone had gone mad and splattered the grain on by flicking a brush. This may have been the result of under development. The test strips were also saying that the negatives were thin, suggesting an exposure of ten seconds, half that of the Fomapan. The two negatives from the Adox film are the complete opposites to each other. The fence post picture (Fg 3) had no detail I could see in the shadow when held up to the light. So when it was being exposed  I dodged the shadow area for a couple of second to stop it blacking right out.  Once it had dried I was surprised to see lots of detail. The two tree picture (Fg 4) was always going to be a landscape crop as there was to much foreground in the negative. It also looked the best picture negative wise.

Figure 6

The Rollei 400s was up next I had trouble picking two negatives that I could see enough of to print. These negatives were thinner than the Adox with some of the frames not showing at all. When looking  through the focus finder at the grain it revealed it to be patchy and shows up on the prints as white blotches. Lack of  proper development is evident maybe?. The picture of the rain on the window (Fg5) was a difficult print to get right.  Keeping the detail, what there is of it, of the door handle and leaf on the left. It was down to six seconds of exposure. The cat (Fg6) picture was the same six seconds but shows up the blotchy grain more. If I had shut the enlarging lens down to F11 or F16 I would have had more time to manipulate how the pictures looked by dodging and burning.

The last negatives to be worked on were the FP4+. Looking down the focus

Figure 7

finder it displayed a fine regular pattern I have come to expect from this film when developed in ID11. I had been looking forward to printing them but was thrown when the test strip revealed that a thirty second exposure was no where near enough. A further two tests revealed a time in the region of fifty seconds. You could say they were the best developed or over developed depending how you look at things. I printed an number of negatives from this film. I was really taken by the smooth tones of the pictures and the intensity of the sky. It was a bright, warm cloud less day. The prints show what a great morning it was at the bridge.  Figure seven showing the superstructure of the bridge gives a good indication as how good the sky was and Figure eight gives a good idea of how strong the sun was. Both pictures were printed at grade two but could quite easily have taken a softer grade.

Figure 8

Conclusion:

I am disappointed that the Rollei 400 was not developed correctly, I know it can produce some very smooth well toned negatives which would have lead to some great prints. As for Adox film, I am coming to the conclusion that we do not mix as this is the second time it has failed to present a good set of neg's. The Fomapan 100 classic was a surprise, if you are looking for a substitute for FP4+ then you will not go far wrong with this emulsion in my opinion. I have noticed that it is slightly more grainy than the FP4+ if you have to burn in the high lights heavily. I use both these films regularly now in rotation as their characteristics are almost identical.

Links to others from series in case you missed them.

Four film

Four film What developed

The most popular posts of 2013.

William Henry fox Talbot 

These are the ten most popular posts on this site for 2013. In some cases not the best written but then who sets out to write a bad article. I compare it to making pictures, I go out with the intention of producing my best work. I chose those pictures that meet that criterion and share them with you. Then the choice is yours and that means you may not agree.

Of the hundred and fifty or so posts on the blog the following are the most visited making them the most popular.

1. Fox Talbot a short history.
2. Darkroom layout.
3. Preparing the pinhole camera for use.
4. Basic split grade printing.
5. Choosing an enlarger.
6. Print washing.
7. Test results for Agfa APX 100.
8. Fuji GW 690111 overview/review.
9. Dryside of the darkroom.
10. Keeping your negatives safe.

Easy Lith 200 Results.

This is my follow on post explaining what happened and how it was done. Not everything went according to plan, but more about that later.

Being in a fortunate position of owning a second slot processor I decided to set this at 26 degrees for the lith developer. I did not add stop or fix to the other slots but continued to use what was already available in the other slotty, keeping the temperature to 20 degrees. It is just as well I did as one of the papers emulsion became very soft.

I chose high contrast negatives that I had already printed. I looked back through my notes on how long each was exposed for and added one and half times more exposure to see how things worked. I chose to follow the instructions when it came to diluting part A and B at 2X 1+25+1000 mls water. (20 mls of each 40 mls in total in 1000 mls of water). The paper I chose to start with was Kentmere RC because it was the paper originally used with these negatives. All the prints were exposed to white light, no grades were set. I had no idea how they would turn out or what sort of tone would be produced. I used two other varitone RC papers to see which produced the best results with this mix of A and B.

Kentmere paper

This is the original Kentmere print exposed at grade zero and developed as normal.

Kentmere paper

This is the first print out of the easy lith on Kentmere paper. It took over three minutes for it to reach full development. A very faint out line of the picture started to show about 30-40 seconds in. It was difficult to see whether the print had toned or not with the red light on.

Foma 131 paper

Second print was on Foma 131 varitone. This took a full twelve minutes to develop fully and is what I had in mind as a lith look.

Ilford paper

Third print was on Ilford multigrade paper, I pulled the paper early because I thought it may go completely black.

Conclusions:

Not knowing what to expect from this process makes it difficult to be to critical with the results. One of my main mistakes was to treat this like a normal developer, I should have mixed the two parts separately so I could vary the strengths of each part to get a look that was in my opinion more lith like, this may have lead me to make changes to the amount of over exposure as well. The problem I think in these early stages of getting to grips with a new process such as this is there are a lot of variables to take into account. With more practice I suspect I will arrive at something more my taste.

A side affect of using the Lith process has shown up a weakness in what I considered a well vented darkroom. This is the first time I experienced a build up of fumes. Some updating needs to be carried out if I wish to continue printing using lith chemicals. After a bit of thought I feel it should be upgraded regardless!

Over all I am pleased with the outcome, for a first attempt. Others may not, but I would prefer to get as many of the mistakes out of the way now so I can concentrate on producing finer prints in the future.

Link back to first post easy lith 200

Local Darkroom.

120 format FP4+ developed in ID11
Printed on Kentmere VC
Develop in Ilford multigrade developer

I received an email from Harman technologies (Ilford products) recently about a new initiative that is to be launched worldwide.

The email was sent because I took part in a survey about darkroom use. It had a large response with fifteen thousand people taking part with over a thousand replies on the first day.

This is a summary of the statistics:

• 69% shot film weekly
• 35% did not use a darkroom but were using black and white film.
• 35% without a darkroom were asked would they like access to a local darkroom 78% of them said yes and of those 32% would like some training.
• 65% said they had access to darkroom facilities provided by work and community with privately owned being the majority.

A second survey for privately owned darkrooms was done with thirteen hundred responses being received. They were asked if they would be willing to share their darkroom and 56% said yes.

With that encouraging result Harman have set up a new free online community www.localdarkroom.com They have already invited tutors and community/ public darkrooms to list themselves on the site. There is also a section for those that have a private darkroom who are willing to share their private space. You will need to be a member of the community to access any of these services, whether training or darkroom in the local area, as there has to be some sort of vetting when allowing people you do not know into your home. For FAQs and more information visit the web site.

I hope this venture is a success and praise Harman for their initiative. But from experience I note that there can be a big difference between what people say on a form and then taking part.

On a personal note I would have liked to open my darkroom to other enthusiasts but it is not practical at the present time.