One way to try (before we all go out & buy up all Fuji lith) would be to
get a box of new 4x5 -- a fraction of the price and presumably close
enough to use for testing...
> <I ran a series of tests comparing new Kodak lith films (3 kinds) with my
> -on-the-shelf-3 years Freestyle lith (and probably pretty old when it
> arrived). The Freestyle was much much *much* easier to get into
> continuous tone in low-to-moderate density for gum.>
>
> Perhaps you could fill me in on a few details regarding your testing.
> Developers, density ranges etc.
You have to realize that my problem was making lith do low contrast for
gum printing, that is, highlights from 1 to 1.2 on the densitometer,
shadows maybe .3 (always a great effort to get lith shadows up that high,
I found).
So I was using Dektol 1 to 7 to 1 to 12, for 1 1/2 to 2 minutes, D76 1 to
4 or more dilute,maybe 3 minutes, and a very promising developer which so
far I have only tested, but may be best of all -- a low contrast "soft
working" glycin developer. Glycin, I gather, is frowned on because it
goes off relatively quickly as powder, and mine did indeed look quite
brown (after 12 years in the jar). But that was just what I needed
(seemed to me) to keep contrast low. And it did.
Agitation with those weak developers is a problem. I found that
brush agitation worked the best -- but this winter I made a post about a
problem negative I was having : The White Limousine. At suggestions
from the list I tried tube development, which seemed to solve most agitation
problems, & when I get back into darkroom (assistant in Rio right now) I
will try hard to improve, continue, that direction. However at the
contrast range you're working in, you won't have those problems, I'm sure.
> <Did you say what density range and process you're aiming for? Of course if
> you're doing salted paper & albumen, or whatever else likes very long
> scale, lith of any make gets easier to work with.>
>
> I work with albumen, so I need a DR about 2.20. This is just about what I
> got with the test.
A whole other proposition, of course...
> I made 11 x 14 positives from 5 X 7 negatives. With a lupe, I can't see
> any grain or random dot pattern. They look like continuous tone to me. I
> compared the positives on a lightbox to 11 x 14 prints made from the same 5
> X 7 negs and the tonal scale and resoultion are very similar. If this is
> 'random dot' which I'm not familiar with, that's ok ith me.
Nope, sounds like continuous tone -- more's the miracle. I thought random
dot because Rodinal supposedly is very grainy & lith (or the lith I've
used) gets grainy in contone too -- so either the Fujilith is different
or Rodinal is magic with lith. (I've also tried Bromophen, HC110 at many
dilutions and various other home brews with lith, none of which worked
well.)
> When I was testing the positives, I got flatter results with shorter
> development times and greater dilutions of Rodinol. I suspect that the
The problem I had with the shorter development in lith was the tendency to
mottled highlights. And I suspect that your "flatter results" weren't as
flat as in my ballpark. Getting low enough highlight without mottling in a
large even area (the limo) was nearly impossible til the tube.
> first developer would provide the opportunity for contrast control.
> However, as I mentioned, these are just preliminary results. I haven't
> tried to make negs with a lesser density range.
Well Mike, we eagerly await your further developments.
Judy