Gast
Hello,
Up until now, I’ve always (and that hasn’t been very often) printed on fixed-grade TT Work. The exposure time was usually between 5 and 20 seconds. But with the ADOX Poly Warmton I’ve just bought, I’d have to expose it for between 200 and 300 (!) seconds to get anything to show up! That seems very strange to me. Is that right, or am I doing something wrong???
Regards, Christian.
PS: Can anyone recommend some reading material to help me get to grips with all the background information (negative and positive)??? Thanks!
Gast
Hi Christian
Yes, that’s just how it is, ‘unfortunately’. The paper itself is absolutely brilliant – if I may say so myself. I’ve never come across a PE paper with a look like this before.
But because the paper doesn’t have any built-in developer, the exposure is very, very long, and it takes at least twice as long in the developer for the highlights to develop properly (develop for at least 1.5 minutes, preferably 2 minutes).
But it’s worth working with this paper. Such a brilliant paper for the price? Let’s see anyone else match that.
Regards,
Martin
Roman
Hello!
What size prints can you get from which negative format, using which aperture on the enlarger lens?
It’s true that Polywarmtone easily needs 1 or 2 stops more light compared to other papers, but 200–300 seconds sounds like an awfully long time (unless you’re printing a 40x50 from a 35mm negative at f/11 :D)
For an 18x24 print from a 35mm negative at f/5.6, I’d estimate around 20 to 25 seconds.
Roman
Gast
Hmm, they were 18x24 from KB at f/5.6. It can’t be down to the enlarger. It’s an ancient piece of kit (Krokus 66), but the TT Works had its exposure in no time either...
Urnes
Hi Christian,
I get roughly the same exposure times as Roman, though I’m using 24x30. I reckon that’s because I’m powering the Focomat with a 250 W bulb.
Other than that, the only thing I can think of is that you might have performed the exposure from the back.
Best regards, Sven.
cfb_de
Guys,
Note: Exposure times cannot be directly compared as absolute values. A Dunco/UPA/Liesegang/Beseler produces a different light output to a Meopta/Leitz/Kaiser/Krokus or Durst/Teufel/Kienzle/Revue.
I learnt this the hard way recently when I first tried using PW14 under my ‘new’ Durst. Compared to the Opemus, the exposure time was easily one and a half times longer...
Since then, I’ve felt vindicated in my decision: the M605 for 35mm and the Opemus-5 for medium format. Both have a colour head. The Opemus is clearly brighter at 6x6 (Meochrom or whatever that white thing on it is called).
And yes: Polywarmtone (and its now discontinued – in some cases prettier – derivatives) is a great paper! You know in advance what to expect. A data sheet is included in every pack. And even the Impex catalogue has some vague line about “after three minutes in the developer, something is still happening in the highlights”. So what’s the problem?
I’ll admit it frankly: I’m not a “post-development” type, more of a “dodger”. That’s why a paper like PW suits me better.
Best regards,
Franz
