Home printing suggestions

In article ,
"G.T." wrote:

> Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer, lenses, neg carriers and
> a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
>
> I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some ultra-economic ideas (both
> cost-wise and space-wise) for washing, squeeging and drying.

A soft sponge works well instead of a squeegee.

>
> Homegrown solutions for washing?
> Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used vertical washer,
> or ?

A tray actually works well, you'll need to dump it quite often to make
the prints wash correctly. Back in school that's how I did fiber. Three
minute perma wash + toner soak, 15 minutes of washing and dumping. Fill
the tray and dump, fill the tray and dump.


> ...for squeeging?
> Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible while holding the
> print? Or get some stainless steel sheet or plexiglass to lay the print on
> for squeeging?
>
Plexi works best.

> ...for drying?
> Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat? I've seen
> suggestions on my past posts for grabbing various plastic trays from a place
> like Target.

Get some nylon screen at home depot. Unroll it and place weights on the
ends between two tables you leave a space under the prints for air. Saw
horses work well too. I always put sponged FB prints right side up.


>
> Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and printing these last
> few weeks. Some of this is probably pretty tedious to the veterans here.
>
> Greg

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

"G.T." wrote in message

> Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer,
> lenses, neg carriers and a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
>
> I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some
> ultra-economic ideas (both cost-wise and space-wise) for
> washing, squeeging and drying.
>
> Homegrown solutions for washing?
> Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used
> vertical washer, or ?
>
> ...for squeeging?
> Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible
> while holding the print? Or get some stainless steel
> sheet or plexiglass to lay the print on for squeeging?
>
> ...for drying?
> Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid
> flat? I've seen suggestions on my past posts for grabbing
> various plastic trays from a place like Target.
>
> Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and
> printing these last few weeks. Some of this is probably
> pretty tedious to the veterans here.
>
> Greg
>
To add to the other suggestions:
RC prints wash out very quickly with no treatment.
Fiber prints should be treated in Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent.
Ilford wash aid may be about identical. When wash aid is
used the wash time for a double weight fiber print is
reduced from about two hours to about 20 minutes.
RC prints can be hung but be careful because clothes
pins will leave marks. You can also just lay them on sheets
of paper towling face up and let them dry. Fiber can be
dried using photo blotters but blotters. Thy are slow but
tend to dry the prints flat. The old method is to dry the
prints on plastic window screen with the emulsion side
facing the screen. The idea is that the screen keeps the
emulsion side from drying out too fast. Fiber prints tend to
curl because the emulsion shrinks more than the paper
support. By keeping some moisture in the emulsion side the
prints will have less tendency to curl.
Both RC and fiber prints can be washed in a tray with a
Kodak tray syphon. This is fine for RC where only one or two
prints are washed at a time but several prints are washed,
as the usual case for fiber, the prints need constant
agitation and shuffling to make sure both sides of all the
prints get adequate contact with the water. So-called
archival washers, the vertical ones, are better at keeping
print separated but some have too much volume hence too slow
change of water.
Squeegee on any flat surface. Plastic is better than
glass because it won't break but the bottom of a smooth tray
works fine, its not critical. I have not had good luck with
most photo squeegees which are made of black rubber. The
rubber tends to leave marks. I've seen white rubber or
plastic squeegees for window washing which are cheaper and
better. A plain cellulose sponge works about as well as
anything.
Anoter suggestion: Use a two bath fixer. The capacity of
a single fixing bath to fix completely, which is important
to permenance, is very limited for either film or paper. By
using two successive baths, each for half the recommended
fixing time, the capacity of the fixer is extended from
perhaps four to ten times. Kodak has instructions for the
method in some of its data booklets. If you can't find it
post back and I will detail it.
The Omega B-22 is a very good enlarger. If the lenses
you got with it are decent you got a bargain. Do you mind
stating what they are? Check the lenses for scratches or
gouges. So-called cleaning marks are actually many small
scratches capable of destroying the contrast of a lens, the
glass should be scratch and haze free. Haze can be fixed,
scratches can not be.

Have fun and congratulations for discovering
old-fashioned chemical photography:-)


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk.RemoveThis@ix.netcom.com
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

"G.T." wrote in message

> Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer, lenses, neg carriers
> and a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
>
> I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some ultra-economic ideas (both
> cost-wise and space-wise) for washing, squeeging and drying.
>
Washing RC doesn't take much water, so it would be difficult to economize
there. For fiber, there are various wash aids available-- taek your pick and
follow instructions.

> Homegrown solutions for washing?
> Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used vertical
> washer, or ?

WalMart is your friend. In the housewares section are lots of different size
containers, many of which would be good for washing. For tray washing, I
like my trusty old Kodak tray siphon. Go to the local hardware and get a
fitting to replace that cone shaped, fits anything hose end. It tends to
fall off.
>
> ...for squeeging?
> Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible while holding the
> print? Or get some stainless steel sheet or plexiglass to lay the print
> on for squeeging?

I don't like squeegees, sponges, etc. Too much chance of scratches. For RC,
dry the prints at an angle so that the water runs off. For fiber, you could
blot the print.
>
> ...for drying?
> Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat? I've
> seen suggestions on my past posts for grabbing various plastic trays from
> a place like Target.

Hanging fiber prints can 'distort' them as they dry. Also the clips used to
hang them can leave surface marks. If you can find window screens that are
nylon instead of metal, get some of those to lay the prints on. Rig some
sort of holder so they can lie at an angle so water will run off.
>
> Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and printing these last
> few weeks. Some of this is probably pretty tedious to the veterans here.
>
My method for washing prints now really isn't appropriate to most people
here. I put RC prints in a holding tray, then run them through the wash
racks of my color processor. They get a six minute wash, a forty second dry,
and they're done. Fiber prints get a twenty minute tray wash, then go
through the wash racks. They come out damp and I lay them on plastic drying
racks.
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message

>
> "G.T." wrote in message
>
>> Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer, lenses, neg carriers
>> and a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
>>
>> I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some ultra-economic ideas (both
>> cost-wise and space-wise) for washing, squeeging and drying.
>>
>> Homegrown solutions for washing?
>> Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used vertical
>> washer, or ?
>>
>> ...for squeeging?
>> Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible while holding the
>> print? Or get some stainless steel sheet or plexiglass to lay the print
>> on for squeeging?
>>
>> ...for drying?
>> Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat? I've
>> seen suggestions on my past posts for grabbing various plastic trays from
>> a place like Target.
>>
>> Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and printing these
>> last few weeks. Some of this is probably pretty tedious to the veterans
>> here.
>>
>> Greg
>>
> To add to the other suggestions:
> RC prints wash out very quickly with no treatment. Fiber prints should
> be treated in Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent. Ilford wash aid may be about
> identical. When wash aid is used the wash time for a double weight fiber
> print is reduced from about two hours to about 20 minutes.
> RC prints can be hung but be careful because clothes pins will leave
> marks. You can also just lay them on sheets of paper towling face up and
> let them dry. Fiber can be dried using photo blotters but blotters. Thy
> are slow but tend to dry the prints flat. The old method is to dry the
> prints on plastic window screen with the emulsion side facing the screen.
> The idea is that the screen keeps the emulsion side from drying out too
> fast. Fiber prints tend to curl because the emulsion shrinks more than the
> paper support. By keeping some moisture in the emulsion side the prints
> will have less tendency to curl.
> Both RC and fiber prints can be washed in a tray with a Kodak tray
> syphon. This is fine for RC where only one or two prints are washed at a
> time but several prints are washed, as the usual case for fiber, the
> prints need constant agitation and shuffling to make sure both sides of
> all the prints get adequate contact with the water. So-called archival
> washers, the vertical ones, are better at keeping print separated but some
> have too much volume hence too slow change of water.
> Squeegee on any flat surface. Plastic is better than glass because it
> won't break but the bottom of a smooth tray works fine, its not critical.
> I have not had good luck with most photo squeegees which are made of black
> rubber. The rubber tends to leave marks. I've seen white rubber or plastic
> squeegees for window washing which are cheaper and better. A plain
> cellulose sponge works about as well as anything.
> Anoter suggestion: Use a two bath fixer. The capacity of a single
> fixing bath to fix completely, which is important to permenance, is very
> limited for either film or paper. By using two successive baths, each for
> half the recommended fixing time, the capacity of the fixer is extended
> from perhaps four to ten times. Kodak has instructions for the method in
> some of its data booklets. If you can't find it post back and I will
> detail it.
> The Omega B-22 is a very good enlarger. If the lenses you got with it
> are decent you got a bargain. Do you mind stating what they are? Check
> the lenses for scratches or gouges. So-called cleaning marks are actually
> many small scratches capable of destroying the contrast of a lens, the
> glass should be scratch and haze free. Haze can be fixed, scratches can
> not be.
>
> Have fun and congratulations for discovering old-fashioned chemical
> photography:-)

One of the best squeegees in the years past was the worn - not new - wiper
blade from the venerable VW bug of the 1950s - 70s...the ones with the flat
as versus curved windshields. Worn smooth through all that use, straight,
and rigid - rather than curved/flexible as wipers for current cars - it did
an excellent job as a squeegee. So if you know of anyone driving around in
a 30, 40, or 50 year old bug, offer to buy him/her a set of new wipers in
return for the old ones.
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

"Lawrence Akutagawa" wrote in message


> So if you know of anyone driving around in a 30, 40, or 50 year old bug,
> offer to buy him/her a set of new wipers in return for the old ones.

That would be me. '58, and '72 Bugs (standard).
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

Richard Knoppow wrote:
>

Thanks for all the tips.

> Anoter suggestion: Use a two bath fixer. The capacity of
> a single fixing bath to fix completely, which is important
> to permenance, is very limited for either film or paper. By
> using two successive baths, each for half the recommended
> fixing time, the capacity of the fixer is extended from
> perhaps four to ten times. Kodak has instructions for the
> method in some of its data booklets. If you can't find it
> post back and I will detail it.

Clarification about fixer since at school the fixer was provided by them
so I didn't know much about it. I'm using a fixer from Freestyle that
clears film in about 30 seconds. Do I use the same fixer for prints?
And is the time in the fixer the same for film? And I absolutely need
to get some Hypo Clear for fiber prints, right?

> The Omega B-22 is a very good enlarger. If the lenses
> you got with it are decent you got a bargain. Do you mind
> stating what they are? Check the lenses for scratches or
> gouges. So-called cleaning marks are actually many small
> scratches capable of destroying the contrast of a lens, the
> glass should be scratch and haze free. Haze can be fixed,
> scratches can not be.

It was an Ebay Buy-It-Now so we'll see when it gets here. At $75 I
won't mind replacing the lenses if necessary.

>
> Have fun and congratulations for discovering
> old-fashioned chemical photography:-)

Thanks, I really enjoy it and I'm hoping that there are more people like
me out there that are giving it a shot in this digital world.

Greg
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

On 1/24/2008 11:13 AM G.T. spake thus:

> And I absolutely need to get some Hypo Clear for fiber prints,
> right?

Yep, unless you want to use (and waste) vast quantities of water and
take hours washing your prints.

By the way, you can use plain sodium sulfite, easily available, as HCA.
It's the main and most important ingrediment. You don't really need the
other stuff (EDTA, etc.) that's in commerially-available hypo-clearing
agent (or "wash aid", if you prefer, though that usage is chiefly
British, I believe).
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

In article ,
Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
>
>Drying fiber prints-
>
>1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.

I strongly disagree -- see below.

>2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
>
>Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and free
>of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
>books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
>despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.

So if "over time [blotters] will...become bedraggled and stained", that
means that over time _something_ is transferring from the prints to the
blotters. In other words, the blotters are becoming contaminated. Even
if it's just with tiny amounts of gelatin from the emulsion, and the stains
are fungus that likes to eat the gelatin, this is not an environment you
want to put a new clean print in.

Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
permanence otherwise.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls DeleteThis @rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

"Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote in message

> In article ,
> Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
>>
>>Drying fiber prints-
>>
>>1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.
>
> I strongly disagree -- see below.

Dunno what the disagreement is, this statement of disagreement being so non
specific....

a. Easy to find blotter rolls these days? If that's what you are saying,
then please cite where I can buy one new.

b. Blotter roll doesn't work well? Please - references/citations/links to
studies. I have prints dried back in the mid/late 60's into the 70's on
blotter rolls used multiple times, which prints are still in excellent
condition.

>>2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
>>
>>Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and
>>free
>>of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
>>books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
>>despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.
>
> So if "over time [blotters] will...become bedraggled and stained", that
> means that over time _something_ is transferring from the prints to the
> blotters. In other words, the blotters are becoming contaminated. Even
> if it's just with tiny amounts of gelatin from the emulsion, and the
> stains
> are fungus that likes to eat the gelatin, this is not an environment you
> want to put a new clean print in.
>
> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
> permanence otherwise.

Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even stained.
Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear "once" and "once
only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take your white socks.
Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of yours...over time it
will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or
two. Most folks don't use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But
surely enough, most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after
enough use from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks.
And ditto photo blotters.
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:

> "Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote in message
>
>
>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
>> permanence otherwise.
>
> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
> bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even stained.
> Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear "once" and "once
> only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take your white socks.
> Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of yours...over time it
> will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or
> two. Most folks don't use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But
> surely enough, most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after
> enough use from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks.
> And ditto photo blotters.

Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available,
and presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why
take the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been
so careful with up to that point?
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>
>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have
>>> archival
>>> permanence otherwise.
>>
>> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will
>> become bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps
>> even stained. Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of
>> underwear "once" and "once only". Don't like the underwear analogy?
>> Then take your white socks. Don't like the socks? Then take that
>> brand new car of yours...over time it will become less reliable,
>> dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or two. Most folks don't
>> use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But surely enough,
>> most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after enough use
>> from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks. And
>> ditto photo blotters.
>
> Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
> photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
> that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available,
> and presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why
> take the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been
> so careful with up to that point?

Thanks, guys, I'm definitely going to go the blotter book route.

Greg
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message

> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>
>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have
>>> archival
>>> permanence otherwise.
>>
>> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
>> bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even
>> stained. Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear
>> "once" and "once only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take
>> your white socks. Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of
>> yours...over time it will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even
>> involved in an accident or two. Most folks don't use their brand new car
>> "once" and "once only". But surely enough, most folks have the sense
>> enough to get a new car after enough use from their current one. Ditto
>> underwear. Ditto white socks. And ditto photo blotters.
>
> Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
> photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
> that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available, and
> presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why take
> the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been so
> careful with up to that point?

Of course, that's where the analogy breaks down...as with most/all
analogies. But the point is use "once" and "once only"...not with washing.
Should you be so wont as to use your underwear "once" and "once only", then
far be it for me to dissuade you to do otherwise. Similarly if you are dead
set on using photo blotters "once" and "once only" - then go right ahead.
In fact, if enough folks use the blotters "once" and "once only"...who
knows - there may enough demand such that the blotter roll returns!

Here, by the way, is what Adorama says about its 11x14 blotter books - "50
year ARCHIVAL quality, museum use approved. Each book holds 21 prints."
Presumably not with use "once" and "once only", but the curious can seek
clarification from Adorama.

http://www.adorama.com/DKBB1114.html
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

On 1/24/2008 11:55 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:

> Here, by the way, is what Adorama says about its 11x14 blotter books - "50
> year ARCHIVAL quality, museum use approved. Each book holds 21 prints."
> Presumably not with use "once" and "once only", but the curious can seek
> clarification from Adorama.
>
> http://www.adorama.com/DKBB1114.html

Yes, but at the risk of beating an already deceased horse, as you well
know, the blotter sheets are no longer archival quality once they're
contaminated with fixer, etc. How many times they can be used is, of
course, up to you, but if you really are after "archival quality", use
once only would be the way to go.

That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions