Kodabromide F1 paper
in [Darkroom]
|
Prev: test please ignore
Next: Tmax & D-76
From: Cheesehead on 12 Jul 2010 19:10 I just picked up a 4x5 this weekend. It came with a bunch of stuff, some I kept, some is elsewhere. One thing I kept is a box of Kodabromide F1 paper. It's really thin stuff. I printed this neg because I like the texture of the two dried flowers up front. http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/flowers002.jpg Makes for a good test neg. (Please pardon the dust from my scanner surface.) Anyway, the paper seems a bit fogged, but not too bad. I developed this in some old D-19. Probably not the best choice. :-) Anyway, what are the opinions out there on this paper and how to best treat it. It looks like, with a little TLC, I might get good mileage out of it.
From: Lawrence Akutagawa on 12 Jul 2010 19:31 Given your description that this is "really thin stuff" it looks as though you have single weight paper. That being so - and if there is no watermark on the back - then consider using it as a paper negative. Contact print your positive print onto another sheet to make that paper negative. Then contact print that negative sheet onto any another sheet (doesn't have to be that Kodabromide F!) to obtain your final positive. You may well like the end result. Experiment contact printing emulsion to emulsion as well as emulsion to back. Some potassium bromide or some Benzotriazole (Kodak Anti-Fog #1) can help the fog situation. "Cheesehead" <dplotusnotes(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cc9eca27-5d2a-4fbd-aada-45d261b6ee81(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >I just picked up a 4x5 this weekend. > It came with a bunch of stuff, some I kept, some is elsewhere. > One thing I kept is a box of Kodabromide F1 paper. > It's really thin stuff. I printed this neg because I like the texture > of the two dried flowers up front. > http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/flowers002.jpg > Makes for a good test neg. > (Please pardon the dust from my scanner surface.) > > Anyway, the paper seems a bit fogged, but not too bad. > I developed this in some old D-19. > Probably not the best choice. :-) > > Anyway, what are the opinions out there on this paper and how to best > treat it. > It looks like, with a little TLC, I might get good mileage out of it.
From: Thor Lancelot Simon on 12 Jul 2010 20:21 In article <i1g8m2$o35$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Lawrence Akutagawa <lakuNOSPAM(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Given your description that this is "really thin stuff" it looks as though >you have single weight paper. That being so - and if there is no watermark >on the back - then consider using it as a paper negative. Contact print Actually, Kodabromide was made in four weights, right through the very end of the emulsion. Document-weight Single-weight Double-weight Postcard-weight ("Extra-weight"?) The document-weight paper is the weight of textbook paper and is, in fact, meant to be bound directly into books. It's considerably lighter than single-weight. Wonderful stuff, with many fun uses. I know Kodak couldn't keep Kodabromide or Elite in production because they would have had to reformulate the emulsions to eliminate cadmium, and they never would have recovered the money spent doing so. But I was still very sad to see them go. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls(a)rek.tjls.com "All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
From: Cheesehead on 12 Jul 2010 20:55 On Jul 12, 8:21 pm, t...(a)panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: > In article <i1g8m2$o3...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Lawrence Akutagawa <lakuNOS...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >Given your description that this is "really thin stuff" it looks as though > >you have single weight paper. That being so - and if there is no watermark > >on the back - then consider using it as a paper negative. Contact print > > Actually, Kodabromide was made in four weights, right through the very > end of the emulsion. > > Document-weight > > Single-weight > > Double-weight > > Postcard-weight ("Extra-weight"?) > > The document-weight paper is the weight of textbook paper and is, in > fact, meant to be bound directly into books. It's considerably lighter > than single-weight. Wonderful stuff, with many fun uses. > > I know Kodak couldn't keep Kodabromide or Elite in production because > they would have had to reformulate the emulsions to eliminate cadmium, > and they never would have recovered the money spent doing so. But I > was still very sad to see them go. > > -- > Thor Lancelot Simon t...(a)rek.tjls.com > "All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all > at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract I rechecked the box. It is Single Weight.
From: Peter on 15 Jul 2010 16:36
On Jul 12, 7:10 pm, Cheesehead <dplotusno...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I just picked up a 4x5 this weekend. > It came with a bunch of stuff, some I kept, some is elsewhere. > One thing I kept is a box of Kodabromide F1 paper. > It's really thin stuff. I printed this neg because I like the texture > of the two dried flowers up front.http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/flowers002.jpg > Makes for a good test neg. > (Please pardon the dust from my scanner surface.) > > Anyway, the paper seems a bit fogged, but not too bad. > I developed this in some old D-19. > Probably not the best choice. :-) > > Anyway, what are the opinions out there on this paper and how to best > treat it. > It looks like, with a little TLC, I might get good mileage out of it. F-1 paper should produce a lower contrast than the higher number papers. D-19 is a higher contrast developer. D-72 or Dektol might be better choices than D1-19. Fog might be from paper age or history of how it was stored. It also might be from a safelight or other light leaks in a darkroom. I have some pretty old Kodabromide and do not see fog. |