Home printing suggestions

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see RemoveThis @sig.com> wrote in message
news:13pi1ctou8k1s53@corp.supernews.com...
> "G.T." <getnews1 RemoveThis @dslextreme.com> wrote
>

Thanks!

>> At $75 I won't mind replacing the lenses if necessary.
>
> Folks get all insistent that you need an Apo-Ultra-Supergon
> lens and then go and take pictures with a Diana or Holga.
>
> Most any lens will make perfectly fine prints.

Hahaha, speaking of which, much of the stuff I want to print is from my
Holga. I also have a Mamiya 645 Pro, though.

Greg
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> 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.

Not always. It could have been impregnated with something to kill
bacteria. Silver for one, would still continue to work.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm.TakeThisOut@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

"Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOSPAM.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:M26mj.1334$0w.385@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody.DeleteThis@but.us.chickens> wrote in
> message
> news:4798e3ef$0$1195$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>>
>>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix.com...
>>>
>>>> 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
>
>
Its pretty common to hear that photo blotters or the
apron on a drum dryer can cause prints to become
contaminated. However, I've never seen any testing of this.
Obviously if one dried very inadequatly washed prints some
material would transfer to the blotters or apron but
generally the prints are well washed and have only the
tiniest traces of hypo in them. IMO this is a very much
exagerated danger. I would not use a blotter book or roll
forever but I think a good many prints can dried in them
without fear. Eventually the separators will become
wrinkeled which will leave marks on the surface of the
prints at which point the blotters should be discarded.
It would be interesting to see the results of sensitive
residual hypo testing on prints dried in well-used blotter
books or rolls.
BTW, the same thing was said of screens. Modern screens
are usually made of fiberglas or some other plastic so can
be washed easily. The older form of drying screens were made
of cheese cloth stretched on a frame. These are more likely
to absorb contaminents from prints but can also be washed
out periodically. I repeat that I think this is an overblown
concern.


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

"G.T." <getnews1 DeleteThis @dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:13phoq8k8in42e3@corp.supernews.com...
> 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?
>

They are supplying you with "rapid" fixer, that is fixer
made of ammonium thiousulfate rather than sodium
thiosulfate. The fixer works faster partly because of the
properties of the type of fixer and partly because it is at
a higher concentration than is usual for the sodium form.
Fixing time should be about twice clering time for any
kind of fixer. Also, the fact that the fixer clears film
does not mean it will completely convert the unused halide
to a soluble form. The capacity of ammonium fixer is
somewhat greater than the sodium form but, in a two bath
setup, there is less difference.
Ammonium thiosulfate fixer when acidified, as it must be
to have a hardener, will cause bleaching of the image if
fixing time is extended. Because the bleaching effect is
greater for the very fine grain images of printing paper
(much finer than film) it is usually recommended that rapid
fixer be used in greater dilution for paper than for film,
although the more concentrated form can be used if one is
careful about time. Ammonium fixer when neutral or alkaline
does not have this bleaching effect. Actually acid sodium
thiosulfate fixer also will cause bleaching but it takes a
very long time so its not usually a concern.
I would strongly recommend the use of a sulfite wash
aid for either film or fiber base paper. Not only is the
wash time reduced but the sulfite can dislodge some
complexes which otherwise are chemically bound to the
gelatin or emulsion silver. While it will not take the place
of adequate fixing it does help to extend the capacity of
the fixer.
Again, RC paper washes out so fast that wash aid is not
required.
The reason many books recommend different fixer for
paper and film is that film has a great deal of silver
iodide in the emulsion and the iodide anion comes out in the
fixer. Iodide can slow down the fixer. It has less effect on
rapid fixer than sodium fixer. When a two bath fixing system
is used the iodide makes no practical difference and both
materials can be fixed in the same solutions. Actually, both
can be fixed in a single bath fixer if you make sure your
paper is getting fully fixed. In fact, most modern variable
contast papers contain some silver iodide emulsion, plus
iodide is sometimes added to fixing baths as an image
preservative! This is usually for microfilm where the
presense of some iodide in either developer or fixing bath
results in a reduction of image oxidation.
A lot of the rules found in older literature are either
wrong or are no longe applicable.
A tremendous amount of research has been done in the
last about 20 years in to image permanence. Some of this
research has changed some of the older ideas of what
constitutes proper processing for permanence (I hate the
term archival).

>> 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.
>
I agree that you got a bargain. Let us know what sort
of lenses you got. Inquiring minds want to know.

>> 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


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

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody DeleteThis @but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4799299e$0$1229$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 1/24/2008 1:40 PM Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:
>
>> "G.T." <getnews1 DeleteThis @dslextreme.com> wrote
>>> At $75 I won't mind replacing the lenses if necessary.
>>
>> Folks get all insistent that you need an
>> Apo-Ultra-Supergon
>> lens and then go and take pictures with a Diana or Holga.
>>
>> Most any lens will make perfectly fine prints.
>
> I second that emotion. However, seeing how cheap enlarging
> lenses are on, say, that little bitty on-line auction site
> these days, no reason to skimp there: go for the
> Rodenstock, the Nikkor, or the Componon.

I agree. While there may be some differences between
Rodenstock, Schnieder, and Nikon top of the line lenses the
differences are negligible. Even quite old lenses are very
good. For instance, a 40 year old Schneider Componon was the
best of class when it was new and is still a very
respectible lens. These are sometimes available in like-new
condition for bargain prices.
Good enlarging lenses are very important even if one is
a rank beginner because otherwise the poor quality resulting
from poor lenses is likely to be very discouraging.


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

On 1/23/2008 3:07 PM G.T. spake thus:

> ...for drying?
> Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat?

You didn't ask about drying RC, but said you might be printing it, so ...

I've always just hung RC prints from the corner with wood clothespins.
They come out nice and flat. Contrary to what Richard said here, I've
never had any problems with that leaving marks on the prints. (I don't
print borderless, so that wouldn't be a problem in any case.)
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

On 1/24/2008 6:33 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody.DeleteThis@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:4799299e$0$1229$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
>> On 1/24/2008 1:40 PM Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:
>>
>>> "G.T." <getnews1.DeleteThis@dslextreme.com> wrote
>>>> At $75 I won't mind replacing the lenses if necessary.
>>>
>>> Folks get all insistent that you need an Apo-Ultra-Supergon lens
>>> and then go and take pictures with a Diana or Holga.
>>>
>>> Most any lens will make perfectly fine prints.
>>
>> I second that emotion. However, seeing how cheap enlarging
>> lenses are on, say, that little bitty on-line auction site
>> these days, no reason to skimp there: go for the
>> Rodenstock, the Nikkor, or the Componon.
>
> I agree. While there may be some differences between
> Rodenstock, Schnieder, and Nikon top of the line lenses the
> differences are negligible. Even quite old lenses are very
> good. For instance, a 40 year old Schneider Componon was the
> best of class when it was new and is still a very
> respectible lens. These are sometimes available in like-new
> condition for bargain prices.

Forgive me if we've already been over this ground before, but this seems
a good time to ask you about a couple older enlarging lenses I have that
I've used with good results. I have a couple versions of the old Kodak
Projection Anastigmat, all in excellent condition. (This is the uncoated
version of what I guess became the Ektar series, correct?) What's your
opinion of these lenses? They seem to be perenially available on eBay in
any conceivable size, cheap.
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

My little two-bits worth:

I dry RC prints by wiping them with a clean, cotton cloth and then lay them
on a flat surface. NOTE that some prints (for some reason that someone
might explain) have a slighly veiled surface. When I wipe the surface with a
clean cloth the veil goes away. I kid you not.

For fibre prints I use Hypo-Clear and wash too long.. I've fibre prints
from the last forty years that show no issues. But what's forty years? Not
much, eh?

Dunno, folks. Thats's just my tiny contribution.

www.digoliardi.net/default-x.htm
www.digoliari.net/default-x.htm

and newer work is hidden but opening Real Soon Now (as they say)
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com>, David
Nebenzahl
nobody.TakeThisOut@but.us.chickens says...
>
> 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.
>
Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
first so boiling was no longer necessary.
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

In article <MPG.22037c42c33fd9e898b4ef.RemoveThis@news.individual.net>,
Rob Morley <nospam.RemoveThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com>, David
>Nebenzahl
>nobody@but.us.chickens says...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
>badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
>new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
>or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
>first so boiling was no longer necessary.

Anthrax! See:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC...6E9C946

Perhaps more of a problem in 1919 than today.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls.RemoveThis@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" <tls.TakeThisOut@panix.com> wrote
> Rob Morley <nospam.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > David Nebenzahl nobody.TakeThisOut@but.us.chickens says...
> > > "archival quality" bit reminds me of my shaving brush
> > > which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> > > sterilized once upon a time,
> > Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
> > badger bristle.
> Anthrax! See:
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC...6E9C946

Another life-long mystery solved ...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

When I went for B&W darkroom instruction, the method used to dry prints was
as follows:

RC - lay face down on a drying rack (plastic window screen) in filtered
moving warm air until dry

Fiber - lay face up aon a drying rack (plastic window screen) in filtered
moving warm air until dry
Then use a couple of sheets of clean white matte board to
sandwich 1 print at a time and press in a dry mounting press for 30 seconds
at about 150 degrees to get the curl out. Do NOT use press on RC papers

I use stackable drying racks purchased from Porters Photo on line. I don't
have a big closet for forced air, so I just leave the racks in the corner of
my darkroom for a while longer than required for forced warm air ( a couple
of 100 watt bulbs and a small fan with filter is enough).
I bought a dry press used via e-bay. Works fine.

"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk.RemoveThis@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13pihfig6anj3b9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOSPAM.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:M26mj.1334$0w.385@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody.RemoveThis@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
>> news:4798e3ef$0$1195$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>>> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>>>
>>>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix.com...
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
> Its pretty common to hear that photo blotters or the apron on a drum
> dryer can cause prints to become contaminated. However, I've never seen
> any testing of this. Obviously if one dried very inadequatly washed prints
> some material would transfer to the blotters or apron but generally the
> prints are well washed and have only the tiniest traces of hypo in them.
> IMO this is a very much exagerated danger. I would not use a blotter book
> or roll forever but I think a good many prints can dried in them without
> fear. Eventually the separators will become wrinkeled which will leave
> marks on the surface of the prints at which point the blotters should be
> discarded.
> It would be interesting to see the results of sensitive residual hypo
> testing on prints dried in well-used blotter books or rolls.
> BTW, the same thing was said of screens. Modern screens are usually
> made of fiberglas or some other plastic so can be washed easily. The older
> form of drying screens were made of cheese cloth stretched on a frame.
> These are more likely to absorb contaminents from prints but can also be
> washed out periodically. I repeat that I think this is an overblown
> concern.
>
>
> --
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk.RemoveThis@ix.netcom.com
>
 >> Stay informed about: Home printing suggestions 

In article <4799dc62$0$6128$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Pieter" <pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com> wrote:

> When I went for B&W darkroom instruction, the method used to dry prints was
> as follows:
>
> RC - lay face down on a drying rack (plastic window screen) in filtered
> moving warm air until dry

I like my RC printer dryer, overall I got it cheap as a part of a
package deal $800 USD for an 11x14 automatic Regal Arkay dryer and a
11x14 Fujimoto paper processor.

I always let the prints settle after drying the lay perfectly flat after
about two minutes of cooling.

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