One example when it comes to cyanotypes; in an attempt to get low contrast,
I used a pinhole camera with the Arista film. I photographed (is that the
right word?) a waterfall at dusk - really low contrast conditions. The
negative, processed in the Jobo, showed nice detail in the running water
when viewed in daylight. I mix cyanotype according to the "Keepers of
light" instructions, but after illumination I had nice blue foliage and
rocks, but totally white water without any detail.
I do not know if I have the patience to burn in a print for 10 minutes.
I have successfully made cyanotypes when I copied normal 35mm negatives
onto the Arista film with a slide copier on an SLR, and enlarged these
positives onto lith film.
When it comes to density or contrst ranges, I really do not know. I have
never used at densitometer or a stepwedge. In my experience, a negative is
OK if it looks dull, but with detail both in the dark and transparent
areas. I can take care of the rest in printing (gelatin). I don't like
dense negatives. Too much overall density just adds grain and time in the
darkroom.
I really had hoped I could avoid buying more gadgets for processing. I
could use the Jobo 2500 tanks with the 2509 reels for hand-processing, but
by using the small tank (4 negatives) it needs one-and-a-half liter of
developer, and the double for the larger tank. In a daylight tank, I
believe I could develop something like 12 negatives in about 1,6 liter?
I have read about the BTZS tubes, but are the not to be used in darkness?
I have planned to try the Windisch extreme compensating catechol developer,
but have not yet had the time. When using rollfilm, the old Stoeckler
2-bath developer gives quite low density in the highlights. But with very
little agitation.
Thanks again.
Per
- - - - - -
>On Sun, 28 Jul 1996 LLSFe@aol.com wrote:
>> Your Jobo is probably the best solution for you. There are developers that
>> are slower working but not weak that you might use. One of Ansel Adams'
>> ....Best wishes,
>>
>> Lynn
>
>Let me second Lynn's and John Buford's suggestions. I spent one of the
>worst years of my life (relatively speaking) trying to tame Kodak
>Professional Copy Film in a Jobo -- the old model, hand rotated, not with
>the machine.
>
>It isn't clear to me from Per's letter what method of rotation he's using,
>but I found that the *slowest* rate by machine was about 10 times faster
>than worked.
>
>The very contrasty PCF finally performed perfectly with one rotation every
>20 to 30 seconds (I'd tried as low as 45!) and a switch to Rodinal, 1 to
>60 as I recall.... but we don't know what film Per is using so can't say
>more there. However, a film coming out too contrasty for *cyanotype* is
>pretty well up there, which does raise one other possibility -- a change of
>film -- but that is almost certainly not necessary.
>
>Well there is yet another possibility -- cyanotype gets terrifically
>contrasty on certain papers. You might find one that's softer. Have you
>got a densitometer, or are you reading it by step tablet? What is the
>"too-contrasty" density range?
>
>Judy