Archive for October, 2007


Don’t do that!

October 29, 2007

Don’t try to use selenium toner (1+3) on a salt print after it has been fixed!


More adventures in “what were you thinking” land…

October 27, 2007

Of the three sheets of film I exposed in the Flint Hills, I had hopes for this one taken at a ranch ruin off of Deep Creek Road. There is something funny going on with the film holder or possibly the camera itself. This has the same defect along the short edge that the APHS film had. Looks like a miss-loaded holder. Same problem with too much front rise but I’m over that. I know how to cure that problem (use a bigger darkcloth). This was done with J&C 100. J&C 100 is most likely FortePan or ADOX. J&C is long gone now (too bad) but I bought a small package of the 8×10 film when I made an 8×10 pin hole camera.

Processing real sheet film has to be done in total darkness, you can’t have a safe light on like with the APHS. Two choices, one is tray processing in the pitch black. Second is to use a tank of some kind and work in daylight. I can do one sheet at a time in my Jobo in the 2840 tank. If I ever find the little clips that originally came with it (I seem to buy everything used with at least one part missing) I could do two sheets of 8×10 at a time.

All the same, it is fun! Lots to learn about the Seneca and the Leclair R.R. lens!

Deep Creek Road Ranch Ruin


The fuzzy end of the lollipop!

October 23, 2007

Took a short trip out into the Flint Hills around Alma, KS this past weekend. The plan was to make some photographs using my 8×10 Seneca and rapid rectalinear lens. Made a few exposures and processed the first sheet of APHS lithographic film in dilute Rodinal. This was the first time I’d tried to use the r.r. lens and so I was expecting it to be somewhat of a learning experience.

From this first negative I learned four things:
1) Be careful about how much front rise is applied. The image circle at infinity focus can’t handle more than about 1″ of front rise. I set the camera up with nearly 2″ and the corner vignetting is pretty severe.

2) My dark cloth is just too small to be useful on the 8×10. It was less of a dark cloth and more of a small sail in the 30mph wind. Time to look into a BlackJacket or BTZS hood instead. If I had been better able to see the ground glass, #1 probably would not have happened.

3) The clips I use for hanging the negatives to dry don’t grip the thin APHS very well. Just hung it up and turned to walk away when I hear a faint “pop” followed by a sickening “flop” sound as the wet negative hit the concrete floor. Amazing how much crud can stick to a sheet of wet film!

4) This particular 8×10 holder may have some issues with keeping the thin APHS film in place. Looking along the edges of the film it seems to have slipped out of the holder’s side slots.

So it seems I got the fuzzy end of the lollipop on this one.

But still, it is terrific to see the detail in an 8×10 negative. Below is a quick scan and on the full sheet I can easily make out individual blades of grass and details of the hay bales.

It is going to be an adjustment working with the 8×10, probably more than when I first started using my 4×5 cameras!

Flint Hills - Deep Creek Road


The 8×10 Portrait Experience

October 1, 2007

Becky consented to sit for some portraits with my “new” 8×10 Seneca. I decided to use the 400mm singlet lens so the portrait would have central focus with a nicely fuzzed out boarder. For film I’ve got a pile of Freestyle APHS litho which if you use a dilute developer (Rodinal 1:200) you can get continuous tone. While not the same as a “real” panchromatic film, it does a very nice job of rendering continuous tones.

In all three of these portraits I used a considerable amount of front shift (perhaps too much as there are some coverage issues) so that instead of having the “sharp” part right in the center, it is lower on the frame.

With that said, here the results:
Rebecca KU 001Rebecca KU 2Rebecca KU 3

These are scans from the negatives as made by a craptacular HP PSC 1410v. Not the worst all-in-one printer/scanner in the world but not the best either. Does a pretty good job but always seems to need the “descreen” option selected no mater what it scans.

The third negative looks the most promising for a good print, seems to have even development all the way round and good density. And so it does make a nice print! But I can’t get a good scan. 😦