Digital BW, The Print

I'm CERTAINLY not a "heavy hitter." However, I've printed forever in
darkrooms and struggled intensively with scanning/inkjet. 

I have found that no amount of filtration works as well as distilled
(not filtered) water (which I buy at pharmacies or grocery stores).
It's cheap. 

You have a Nikon 4000 so you know high resolution..I find that my
Nikon V exaggerates dirt which does escape fine filtration. In my
experience, it only takes a final rinse or two plus photoflo/distilled
dip to do the trick. For me, bottled distilled water is actually more
convenient than filtration.

The alternative to polyethylene is polyester, a hard, somewhat rigid
plastic. I prefer the "sidelock" polyester sleeves from Light
Impressions Direct because the film doesn't have to be dragged across
so much sleeve to be inserted and removed. 

I'm sure you're right that polyethylene is "archival" but that's not
the only issue IMO. 

I notice that my 30 year old Savage and Agfa glassines (translucent
paper) are still in good shape (though yellowing), the negs still scan
beautifully, with minimal spotting.





Sorry I said "skill." It's an issue of "technique." 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Lockwood"
<hflockwood@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@> wrote:
> >
> >   While I would 
> > > > like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> > > > impossible. 
> > > > ~Mary
> > > >
> > > 
> >   I gave up on silver film, partly 
> > > because of the dust problem. 
> > > 
> > > Harry
> > >
> > 
> > It doesn't take much skill to eliminate "dust problems."
> > Use of a lab will inevitably result in scratches, no matter what
> > you're experiencing at the moment. 
> > 
> > 1) use distilled water, not filtered, for the last change or two of
> > water (agitating...you do of course use a stainless reel because you
> > can't properly clean plastic). You can use relatively clean tap water
> > to mix chems and to do the initial rinses. 
> > 
> > 2) use distilled water, not filtered, with 3 drops Photoflo per 500cc
> > for a few second dip before hanging.
> > 
> > 3) hang to dry in a low dust area...in my case, that's a casually
> > cleaned bathroom, hanging from clips on coat hangers hung in turn on
> > the shower curtain rod.
> > 
> > Any small amount of dust that remains can be cloned out in
> > moments...in extreme cases (carelessness) it can be eliminated with
> > the lightest Photoshop dust/spot setting (which will conserve some
> > film character that XP2 and color neg films totally lack to begin
> > with). IMO if you resort to XP2/color neg you might as well go digital
> > because your detail resolution and tonal scale will be
> > better...assuming more than 10mp on APS-C and assuming you don't use
> > inexpensive zooms. 
> > 
> > An important trick is to avoid polyethlene negative sleeves.
> 
> Then I guess I lack the "skill to eliminate 'dust problems.'"
> 
> No Lab involved; I develop my own Ag-based films.  No scratch
problems whatsoever.  SS 
> tank?  Check.
> 
> Photoflo rinse?  Check.
> 
> Hang to dry in closed shower stall?  Check.
> 
> Distilled water rinse?  Uh oh.  Haven't tried that.  Since I have a
roll of TMax in the tank, I'll 
> give it a try.
> 
> Another problem I couldn't solve was film curl.  Created scanning
problems in my Nikon 
> 4000 ED.  The C41 film I get from the local (pro) shop is dead flat.
> 
> I use PrintFile neg holders, and, indeed, they are polyethlene.  The
manufacturer claims 
> they are archival and better for not attracting dust.  What would
you recommend as a 
> alternative?
> 
> Might as well go digital?  Bite your tongue!  (As I fondle my M7.)
> 
> As for tonal scale, my feeling is that the printing workflow may
have a greater impact on 
> *my* images.  I use K7 piezo inks on (typically) HPR in an Epson
2400.  And since I don't 
> do landscapes, perhaps I'm just not seeing the loss of tonal range.
> 
> (Also, I had originally mentioned the exposure latitude of XP2 which
I find valuable in fast 
> shooting situations and tricky lighting.)
> 
> Nonetheless, I do appreciate the comments/suggestions.  I realize
there are some heavy 
> hitters (ncluding djon43) here with vastly more experience than I have.
> 
> Harry
>