From: Alejandro Lopez de Haro (alhr@wanadoo.fr)
Date: 11/29/01-07:28:23 AM Z
Hi to all:
Gosh! I was so exited when I bought my Lotus 12x20 camera, which BTW, I
haven't been able to use it, because I am expanding my lab room, since I
have not sufficient space to develop such large prints, nor I have the UV
exposure unit for such format, but hopefully by next year I should have one.
Presently, my lab is a makeshift small bathroom, but fortunately the
expansion should be ready by next month. (Just imagine how difficult it is
to make an expansion in an apartment in Paris. Some of the rooms must go:
the dining room? If I don't write back, is that my wife have thrown me out
of the apartment. J)
Well, what I wanted to say is, that I thought I had a large format, but a
20x24 makes my 12x20 seems small. I feel humble.
Just to mention, I have seen Mr. Burkhardt Kiegeland 20x24 portraits, and
they are simple SUPERB.
Cheers to all,
Alejandro López de Haro
P.S. Mr. Kiegeland is one of the lucky few that is able to develop by
inspection. I have try it, but somehow or other, I can't seem to judge the
negative in such a dim green filter light.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy King" <sanking@CLEMSON.EDU>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Experience with 20X24 format
> As corrected in an earlier message, yes, I mean vertical sideways
> agitations for 10-15 seconds every 1-2 minutes.
>
> I used two liters of Pyrocat 2:2:100 solution. I have not tested FP4+
> with ABC+ so don't know what the best dilution would be for it, but
> am guessing 1:2:75.
>
> Sandy King
>
>
> >Sandy,
> >Many thanks for the information. I will give the Rollo pyro a try.
> >I'll also try your agitation method: you mean 10-15 seconds, don't you?
Sort
> >of like inversion agitation of a stainless steel roll tank?
> >Do you recall how much Rollo solution you were putting in the Jobo 20X24
> >drum?
> >Thanks, Neal
> >
> >> From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
> >> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> >> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:35:16 -0500
> >> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> >> Subject: Re: Experience with 20X24 format
> >>
> >> Hi Neal,
> >>
> >> I look forward to hearing more about your work with the 20X24.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, I was very surprised that the 450mm Nikkor covered so well. It
> >> even allowed some movement when focused at about 25 feet. The
> >> diagonal of 20X24 is about 30 inches, so the Nikkor-M, which is
> >> 17.75" in focal length, is .58 of 30, so the correlation would be
> >> more to a 20-21" lens than a 24".
> >>
> >> I develop all of my large film (7X17, 12X20, and now 20X24) in print
> >> drums with either Pyrocat-HD or ABC+ (Rollo Pyro) and have never had
> >> any problems. I pre-soak most of the time (in the drum) for about 5
> >> minutes but even on the times when I did not pre-soak I saw no
> >> streaking or staining. I would avoid PMK, however, because in the
> >> past I did see some streaking with PMK and rotary processing. The
> >> film that I developed after the recent experience with the 20X24 was
> >> FP4+. It was developed in a Jobo 20X24 print drum on a Unicolor motor
> >> base with Pyrocat_HD and the negatives were perfect.
> >>
> >> When processing in print drums I do follow an agitation method that I
> >> would highly recommend. Once every 1-2 minutes, depending on time of
> >> development lift the drum off the motor base and agitate vertically
> >> for 10-15 minutes. If you don't do this you may get bromide drag from
> >> the laminar flow of the developer.
> >>
> >> Sandy King
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Dear Sandy,
> >>> Your account has inspired me to borrow a friend's 20X24, for a
project I've
> >>> been working on, photographing squatter settlements in Manila. I
> >>>also have a
> >>> 450mm Nikkor-M and was pleasantly surprised to hear that it covers
the
> >>> format! I am wondering how wide this lens ends up being on 20X24,
something
> >>> like a 24mm in 35mm?
> >>> How did you process your film? I was thinking of using Rollo-pyro in
a Jobo
> >>> 20X24 print drum, but am concerned about film streaks that I've heard
occur
> >>> with the big print drums. Given the high cost of the film and the
fact that
> >>> I only have one film holder, I don't want to lose film in the
processing
> >>> stage so I'm thinking the safer alternative is a regular non-staining
> >>> developer that isn't so streak-sensitive. Its just that the pyro
gives me
> >>> such delicate tonality in the sky. Anyone's experience developing
this
> >>> format would be appreciated.
> >>> Thanks in advance, Neal
> >>>
> >>>> From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
> >>>> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> >>>> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:51:46 -0500
> >>>> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> >>>> Subject: Experience with 20X24 format
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> In this day of digital equipment I suspect that most of you will
> >>>> consider that the use of a 20X24" format camera is "alternative"
> >>>> photography. Which gives me justification to post the following
> >>>> information.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yesterday, with the aid of Sam Wang, I took a real live 20X24"
camera
> >>>> into the field and made four negatives, using the FP4+ like film
from
> >>>> PhotoWarehouse. Sam's help was invaluable because the camera, which
> >>>> is a home-made field camera after the Nagaoka, weighs about 50
pounds
> >>>> and it can be something of a bear to get on the tripod. I was
pleased
> >>>> to find that my Manfrotto 3036 tripod and 3039 head, though not
rated
> > >>> for this weight, supported the camera very well.
> >>>>
> >>>> I used three lenses for the four negatives, including a 480mm Dagor
> >>>> and a 450mm Nikkor-M and was really surprised to find out that the
> >>>> Nikkor-M covered the format and even allowed for a bit of movement.
> >>>>
> >>>> The negatives were developed in Pyrocat-HD for 15 minutes, based on
a
> >>>> scene with a SBR of about 5. The only problem I had was a small
light
> >>>> leak caused by movement of the holders on re-insertion of the dark
> >>>> slide after exposure. Actually, what I did was insert the slide
> >>>> between the camera and holder, thus pushing the holder slightly out
> >>>> and allowing light to pass. Silly thing to do but on the vertical
the
> >>>> top of the holder was a foot over the top of my head and the
> >>>> insertion point thus not visible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sandy King
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
>
>
> --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/10/01-11:12:22 AM Z CST