Adox FX-39 is basically a development of red, I think. I’ve had some nice results with it.
Interesting, thanks for the tip, I will definitely give it a try.
Pingback:Neofin Red – and Blue – Revisited – Real Photographs
For a stop bath I just add a schluck of white vinegar to some water. I’ts just acetic acid after all.
I’m now almost out of Kodak Photoflow. However I suspect it is just the same as the Rinse Aid I put in my dishwasher. Comment?
I also have some “Liquid Acid Hardener”. Recommended to add to the fixer when fixing film. What is it, and is there an equivalent?
I have used white vinegar in days gone by. As you say, it is basically acetic acid so works fine.
There may be other additives in Rinse Aid but I’ve no doubt it would work as a Photoflo substitute. Experiment with dilution; you probably only need a tiny amount and I’d recommend using distilled water. If over-concentrated you can get streaks, best to air dry rather than use heat.
Liquid Acid Hardener contains chrome alum (if it’s Kodak) and is rarely needed with modern films as the emulsions are pretty tough. Some Eastern European films may benefit from using hardener but most film fixers contain them anyway. Hardener can prolong washing times. Not recommended for use with print fixers.
I’ve got some old vials of Neofin Blue. Purchased in 2004 I think. Stored in a cupboard, not the fridge. Reading your note can I assume that they are probably still good to use?
Alex, my Neofin Blue is even older than yours and also stored in a cupboard, or worse! It seems to be a remarkably resilient developer and I have no doubt it will still be perfectly usable.
Ps. When you say 3-4 10×12″ prints: Is that per liter of diluted solution?
Thank you for this! I’ll have to test it for film reversal. It would be great if it could replace the more toxic options!
Regarding acid concentration:
If you have a 20% solution, just adjust the volume, to give the same final concentration: V1 * C1 = V2 * C2. Solved for V2:
V2 = (V1 * C1)/C2.
To adjust for 20%: Volume of 20% H2SO4= (6,5ml * 98)/20 = 32ml.
Dear woman or man,
I don’t know if you are into the art of photographing at this moment, but I think you photograph of the Nautilus Nautilis is very beautiful!
I was downloading some pictures of Edward Weston and I came to your site.
Really beautiful. I have this wonderful shell in my collection but I am not a photographer.
Make more photographs,
With kind regards,
Thank you Irene, and yes I am still making photographs!
Hi thanks fornthe recipe, it just says concentrated sulfuric acid, how many percent did you use? Will 20percent be enough? Greetings
Hi Dennis, thanks for the enquiry. I used concentrated sulfuric acid, which is around 98%, but that may not be easy to obtain and of course requires VERY careful handling. Using dilute sulfuric at around 20% may work but I would imagine will take longer. Perhaps dilute the stock solution to 1+4 instead of 1+9 and experiment? I’d be interested to hear if you do and will amend this page accordingly.
Thanks, I will see if I can source the chemicals. I have both of Rudmans books….and found the fixer suggestion in there, but was wondering if there was something off the shelf thatI might purchase At Freestyle Photographic, which is a 25 mile drive from me.
Marvelous! What a wonderful home.
dear Sir, I just saw your website, very nice one, congratulations. Actually, I used the Rodinal too , 1+50 on very large negatives, it’s a great developer, very easy to use
I noticed that you have a Zeiss Protar 320mm. I am very interested buying this lens. if you might consider selling it, please feel free to contact me
Thank you for your comment, my apologies for the late response.
I have no plans to part with the 320 Protar – it’s a rather nice lens – but thank you for your interest.
Do you know if sodium bisulfite can be substituted for the potassium metabisulfite?
Hi Joe, Apologies for the late reply but you’ve probably discovered by now that substitution with sodium bisulfite is perfectly okay. Potassium metabisulfite is readily available though, from brewing and winemaking suppliers, whereas the sodium salt is harder to track down. Guessing you already have some though!
I am wondering if you have any further experience with the differences between grades 2, 3, and 4 of Slavich Unibrom in Lith? I am looking into buying this paper, but am unsure which grade to buy. I have heard that the different grades exhibit different effects in their texture / Lith effect. Do you have any insights into this? Thank you!
Hi Eli, Apologies for late response, haven’t visited for a while!
My experience with differing grades is limited, I only have 2 and 3. So far I have found that both exhibit similar properties, although the tendency to pepper fog seems more prevalent on the Grade 3. However, the many variables in lith processing may affect this. As a starting point I would suggest getting some Grade 2 and 3 and experiment under your own processing regime.
Pingback:St Peter-on-the-Wall, Bradwell (redux) | Real Photographs
Pingback:Rievaulx Abbey 2013 | Real Photographs
Pingback:Amaryllis-Bleach/Lith | Real Photographs
Pingback:Spathiphyllum (‘Peace Lily’) | Real Photographs
Spot the difference! Pity he got there first, but a you’ve risen to a great technical challenge.
I remember us talking about this project – such a good idea and a beautiful image in this case. The contrast with the digital picture is very illuminating. Have you done other objects? I’d like to see them.
Pingback:Memoria Vitae – The Underwood | Real Photographs
Pingback:Nautilus – the contact print | Real Photographs
Thanks for the comment Andy and yes it’s the print that counts. To be honest I’m happy with both, but when it comes to a ‘proper comparison’ it depends what you are looking for I guess. The two media are quite different as you know and having come from a lifetime of film use it still amazes me how you can now create a printed image from digital that is perfectly acceptable, and occasionally better.
The silver print just has a different ‘feel’ to it; hard to describe.
I suppose to get a proper comparison you need to compare an inkjet print from your digital file against the silver prints from your negs
Pingback:Slavich Bromportrait: Two-Pass Lith | Real Photographs
Pingback:Slavich Bromportrait in LD20 Lith | Real Photographs
Pingback:Slavich Unibrom in Easylith – Pepper Fog | Real Photographs
Pingback:Slavich Unibrom Lith – First Prints | Real Photographs
Pingback:Slavich Unibrom in Easylith | Real Photographs
Pingback:Slavich Bromportrait in LD50 | Real Photographs
Pingback:Slavich Unibrom – Second Prints | Real Photographs
Pingback:Slavich Unibrom – First Prints | Real Photographs
Pingback:Zeiss Protar 8.5cm Test | Real Photographs
Pingback:Acros 100 in PMK | Real Photographs
Fascinating stuff, Roy, and also rather spooky. I’ve just finished reading ‘The Gift of Rain’, which has overlapping and multipole lives and spirtual connections as a driving theme. Adds a valuable dimension to our visit on Wednesday.
Thanks Garry, a very interesting link. I will add it to the Edwin Smith section on my site, which is currently undergoing reconstruction.
Interesting blog here about Edwin Smith and Olive Cook’s contributions to the Saturday Book.
does anyone have a formula for the now unavailable Kodalith Fine Line developer ?
Simon Yeo. (UK)
That all sounds very complicated, the polar opposite to digital snapping, but it’s certainly worth it.
A beautiful image that makes one look into the subject, feel its history and appreciate the subtlety of vernacular architecture. It’s like a portrait with all the lines of the face telling a story.
This had me flashing back to your piece on the Formulary and recalling my early fascination with various film and paper developers. My experimentation was limited to studying the difference between processing TriX in neat as opposed to 1:1 diluted D76 (the latter easily the winner for it’s acutance at the cost of more grain – it’s what Hemmings used in Blow Up, I bet) but that in no way lessens my appreciation for what you are doing here.
And your superbly seen and processed picture made the whole thing great reading and your effort worthwhile.
In the era of digital, a pixel is a pixel is a pixel is a pixel, with apologies to Ms. Stein. The romance in processing alternatives has gone.
Thank you for a fine memory.
Pingback:Kodak D-85 Developer Test | Real Photographs
Excellent further posts, Roy. Don’t want to obsess about technical matters, but two good examples of what can be achieved with 35mm. On all of them the tonal qualitioes are so good that one feels frustrated at having to look at them on screen – this is where the photograph as object can be so important.
Excellent pictures, very subtle and calm – photography in the contempaltive mode. Mostly down to the photographer, of course, but there is something about the traditional techniques with their inherently extended timescales that encourages this. I look forward to seeing the exhibition and the publication.
interesting result with the Adox, I have a box but as yet only printed b&w. I like both of your prints, each has its own distinct feel to it.
Loving the broad tonal range in these recent postings.
In response to the above comment, I have scanned the original print-out I made of the Marco Pauck article in 2005.
It may be downloaded here.
You mention the digital lith processing workflow first described by Marco Pauck which I also been trying to recover from somewhere and I just can’t ! I did use it back in 2006 with success but I never saved the workflow itself…
I would really appreciate if you could let me get hold of it somehow!
A good opportunity to see dev solutions
Pingback:Tweets that mention Edward Bawden’s House – 1989 -- Topsy.com
Hi, this is a comment.To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.
I like the unusual effect you achieved with your processing. Very attractive and unique.
I like the shape of the jetty and the way the cracks between boards run different directions. Wonderful toning.