Gast
Hi everyone
I use ADOX Easy Print Polywarmton RC. What really annoys me about this brilliant paper, though, are the tediously long exposure times (up to 3 minutes, depending on the shot).
Is there a paper with similar characteristics (tonal range, contrast, etc.) that requires a shorter exposure time?
Thanks for your advice.
Regards,
Martin E
Roman
Agfa Multicontrast is probably your best bet – though it’s unclear how much longer it’ll be available.
Or give Fomatone MG a go – it doesn’t require such long exposure times, and it develops just as well.
Gast
Hi Roman,
Is the base on the Fomatone MG 333 as thin as on the Fomaspeed Variant III, or is it thicker?
Best regards,
Martin
Roman
Yes, it feels just as thin...
ultra8
Hi everyone
I use ADOX Easy Print Polywarmton RC. What really annoys me about this brilliant paper, though, are the painfully long exposure times (up to 3 minutes, depending on the shot).
Is there a paper with similar characteristics (tonal range, dynamic range, etc.) that requires a shorter exposure time?
This paper has almost identical exposure times to Agfa’s MCP paper. I expose my 6x6 negatives with an 80mm lens at f/16 and, with a well-defined negative, I’m looking at around 15–25 seconds...
Regards
william5
Hi Martin, I can’t offer you any advice, but I’d really like to understand why my exposure times are so much shorter. I also use Polywarmtone and print at 24 x 30. With well-balanced negatives, I hardly ever need exposures of one or more minutes. Equipment: Meopta Opemus with colour mixing head and aperture 8 or smaller (i.e. 11–22). Developer: N 120 S.
Best regards, Jens
Gast
Hello Jens,
I use an Opemus 6 with a 150W Opal condenser lamp. I also use a Compagnon-S 50mm lens.
My working aperture is f/8. I usually enlarge to 24x30 with normal-density negatives.
I perform development in Agfa Neutol NE (new in Spur 2o Dur).
Do you perhaps have more light on your enlarger? That could be the reason.
Greetings from Switzerland
Martin
MirkoBoeddecker
It could be that the heat-protective glass has been removed from Jens’ Opemus.
If it’s still in there, that doubles the exposure times.
With 24x30, f/8 and normally highly dense negatives, the exposure time should definitely be under a minute. For me, it’s about 20–30 seconds.
Of course, it’s also important to position the Opal lamp correctly and to ensure the condenser is fitted and seated properly.
We currently have colour frames on special offer for €99 without a transformer.
I don’t want to try and talk you into it, but if you can’t get your Opemus to work, we could sell it to you on a trial basis; you only keep it if it improves the results, otherwise you send it back.
Otherwise, I can’t think of anything else.
Regards,
Mirko
PS: Which filtering method do you use?
Always use just one filter at a time! (just checking....)
william5
I haven’t modified my Opemus in any way, and as I’m the first owner, I’m assuming the heat-resistant glass Mirko mentioned is still in there :P
Otherwise, it’s not a condenser model, but one with a colour-mixing head that has a built-in halogen lamp. I can’t complain, and with that in mind, you might want to take Mirko up on his offer.
Best regards, Jens
Gast
Hi Mirko
I’ve now removed the heat-protective glass from my Opemus 6. The exposure times have indeed decreased noticeably. Great tip, but I hope that doesn’t cause any safety issues :-)
Now another question: I don’t need the filter drawer either, as I hold the Ilford filters under the lens. Can I also remove the frosted glass pane from the filter drawer without causing any technical issues (safety, heat, etc.)? I reckon that would let in significantly more light. But I’ll only do it if there are no downsides.
Thanks for your reply.
Regards,
Martin
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Martin,
As the name suggests, the heat-protective glass provides protection against negative heating.
At the same time, however, it increases exposure times, which in turn promotes negative heating. If you enlarge without the glass, the negative may ‘pop’ and shift out of the plane of focus.
Not much can go wrong with the glass stage.
The diffuser (which should be made of acrylic rather than frosted glass, otherwise someone has been tinkering with your setup) produces softer light (reducing scratches and dust flecks) and ensures that small spots on the filters are not visible in the image.
If you remove it, the light will become slightly harder (but also more brilliant, with sharper edges).
So, as well as the question of more light, it’s also a question of aesthetics.
Best regards,
Mirko
PS: I recommend using the filter drawer if you already have one. Filters placed in front of the lens slightly reduce image sharpness. Of course, this also depends on the quality of the lens.
cfb_de
Hi Martin,
On my Opemus-5, when it still had the Opal head fitted, I usually had the heat-protective glass inside and the frosted glass pane on top.
It’s definitely more comfortable and safer for a glassless mask (I do KB glassless): 125W of heat concentrated on the negative can mean the end of the emulsion or NC backing on Efke/Rollei within just 45 seconds.
The light is just a bit harder without the frosted glass, and you tend to see lint more easily.
If I were you, though, I’d first check that the lamp and condenser are fitted correctly. For me, the Op5 with a 150W lamp was actually usually far too bright (and that hasn’t changed with the Meochrom).
Best regards,
Franz
(Mirko, the frosted glass pane you sold me with the Op5 was neither frosted glass nor etched. It came from the sandblasting/glass blasting box and serves its purpose perfectly. BTW: frosted glass is etched. Presumably, by ‘frosted glass’ you meant ‘opal glass’?)
Gast
Hello Mirko, hello Franz
Thanks for your replies. If I’ve understood correctly, there’s a chance the negatives could get too hot if the glass is left out.
The compromise would be to leave the heat-protective glass out and keep the open glass in the filter drawer.
Can I then assume that a certain level of protection for the negative is still guaranteed – even if not as much as with the heat-protective glass?
I’m no technician, but I was really thrilled last night when I finally got exposure times that were within the normal range.
Best regards,
Martin
cfb_de
Hi Martin,
> The compromise would be to leave the heat-protective glass out and keep the etched glass in the filter drawer.
The other way round. Keep the heat-protective glass in, and get rid of the frosted glass. That’s the compromise I think is acceptable, and it works for glassless stages too.
But that’s exactly what I wrote. Grmpf.
The frosted/etched/sandblasted glass doesn’t block any of the heat at all. That’s not what it’s designed for, so it can’t do it. And for that, you just use the gradation filters half a stop softer.
Is that clearer now?
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Hi Franz,
Right then, that sorts everything out :-)
Just a quick fix: pop the protective glass back in, and the etched plate goes straight out :-) I don’t want to ruin the negatives (though they’re not Efke, they’re Fomapan :-)
Have a lovely Sunday.
Greetings from freezing cold Switzerland,
Martin
Gast
Hello,
My German isn’t very good, but am I right in thinking that the Meopta is, in principle, a complete design failure?
Why don’t you try using a 60 (75) watt bulb without the protective glass, if the 150 watt one burns out the negatives?
cfb_de
Hello Oleksander,
Is the Meopta basically a complete design failure?
No. Meoptas are well-designed. But Martin has a 150W bulb in it and finds the enlarger too dark.
That’s why I suggested removing the diffuser/frosted glass; then the enlarger is about one stop brighter.
Sorry for replying in German too, but I don’t speak your language at all :-)
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Thanks, Franz,
I’ve now understood what you mean.
So can I leave all the filters in and use a 250-watt lamp (an Opal one), or do you no longer stock them?
cfb_de
Hello Oleksander,
At 250W, the Opemus burns out. That’s too much for the device. Maximum 150W.
Best regards,
Franz
