Re: Shooting long range negs?
Pyro would be one way to go, but I got good results using a standard PQ
universal developer (such as Ilford PQ Universal) rather than a film
developer. You want a long scale negative with low fog, and in my
experience you got best results from negs that had a noticeably higher
max density than I used for palladium or platinum.
The camera film I found easiest to work with was Ilford Ortho, which has
the advantage that you could easily develop by inspection. Of course
there are occasions when you need a film that is sensitive to red, but
photographers managed without that for quite a long time! If you do need
a pan film I'd second the suggestion of Ilford FP4 and Kodak TriX.
Another advantage of the PQ (generally used at 1+19) is that developing
times are fairly short, typically I think around 6 minutes at around
20C. When developing by inspection long times get rather boring.
The other developer I used which gave excellent negs was amidol, but I
wouldn't suggest trying that - the PQ is much easier to work with.
Peter Marshall - Photographer, Writer: NUJ
email@example.com +44 (0)1784 456474
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
BOB KISS wrote:
I also agree with Sandy to use a pyro developer. I have had
excellent results with Tri-X 8X10 film developed in PMK for
platinum/palladium printing which needs nearly as much but not quite as much
density range as salted paper. With this combination, I get excellent
smooth highlights and good deep open shadows on my PT/PD prints.
Pyro negs have the added attraction of still being printable with
silver gelatin even when developed to contrasts necessary for alt processes.
From: Sandy King [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Shooting long range negs?
I don't know Fomapan 200 but Kodak TXP is not a good film for salted
paper. You would be much better off with TMAX-400 or Ilford FP4+.
Also, I would suggest the use of a staining developer as the stain
will give a big boost to the overall contrast of your negatives since
stain density blocks UV light.
Chris Anderson's comments about sizing and fog are very appropriate.
Salted paper is very sensitive to both and results can be very ugly
if you don't pay attention to detail.
At 6:06 PM +1000 8/9/07, Ross Chambers wrote:
I'm trying to achieve salted prints from 5x7 camera negatives.
I'm a little hampered by regular lack of access to a densitometer
(occasional access is not impossible -- I just don't want to strain the
friendship until I feel more confident of results) so I'm eyeballing them
best I can using the step wedge on the light box comparison method.time
I would appreciate recommendations on the filmstocks / developers that I
have available (I've used Fomapan 200 and Kodak 320TXP; Xtol and D76 thus
far with results which printed OK on Ilford MG IV VC at grades 2 - 0, but
are still flat, but not totally hopeless, on salted paper).
I'm paying regard to John Barnier's recommendation to extend processing
I have also Arista Ultra Edu 100 and APHS Litho (Jim Galli's evil
neither of which I have tried.
My developers option is D76, Xtol, HC110, Rodinal and a bunch of raw
I haven't tried my preciously hoarded Arches Platine yet, I'm using some
cheap Canson 100 and realise that this could contribute to the short
What would any of you successful salt printers grab off my shelf to set out
for a printable negative?
Thanks - Ross
New South Wales