From: Cheesehead on
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
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
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
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
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.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: test please ignore
Next: Tmax & D-76