9/17/2017

Another Enlarger Enhancement

I have been steadily modifying my Meopta enlarger that I bought for £15.00. I started with raising it up to allow larger prints. Then I upgraded the lenses as I saw I was losing sharpness on the edges. Then because I wanted to stop down the lens for better sharpness I changed my 75 watt bulb to 150 watt.

More light helped immensely with exposure times with stopped down large prints. On the other hand  smaller prints suddenly became challenging as I could not stop the lens down enough and I kept running into sub-8-second exposures even at f22. Though I have automated my enlarger and that makes the short exposures accurate, there is not much time for dodging and burning.

Finally I decided I could improve the setup using the now unused filter drawer. Since my automation project uses below-the-lens filters the filter drawer is unused. I bought a pair of single stop ND filters (Cokin P Series P152 0.3 ND2 - 1 Stop Neutral Density Filter) and carefully cut them to fit the filter drawer. These filters are very fragile and though plastic are easy to crack like glass. I used a sharp utility knife and scored the cut cut repeatedly from both sides until I was sure I could break it free. I tried a small dovetail saw but nearly destroyed the filter.


I used 2 1-stop filters as the 150 watt lamp made a 2.5 stop increase in light. 2 filters I reasoned would give me more latitude in adjusting the exposure time. I stack the two filters when I need all the attenuation. So far the system works well.







Ferrania P30 Alpha Test

I joined the original Kickstarter Campaign for Ferrania. The journey has been long waiting for the rewards. I joined as a means to support any effort for film photography. Thus I am happy to be asked to buy their interim product; a black and white 35mm film based on the formula for Ferrania's historical P30 movie film.  This was meant to to be a pipe cleaning exercise for the resurrected factory. I am not a big fan of 35mm and prefer medium format. The original rewards were to be color reversal film in different formats including medium format.

About a month ago I finally got my film and today got around to processing it. I decided to follow the process outlined in my previous post here. I made a roll of test exposures on my Olympus OM1 metered separately with a digital light meter (Sekonic) at ASA 80 box speed. I exposed +/-1 and +/- 2 stops and nominal tests. I developed in D76 stock at 7:00 minutes 20 degrees (compensated for 24 degree developer temperature) according to the best practices v1.5 from Ferrania for nominal development and +/-17% as well. I made a contact print at 00 filtration.

The development times were as follows: D76 7:00 Min 20C
Nominal 6:00  24C
-17%       5:00 24C
+17%      7:00 24C

Below is the contact print done at #00 filtration. I exposed the print at the time that just achieved total black in the blank film areas. The top strip is nominal development, the second at -17% dev time, and the bottom at +17% dev time. Ignoring the first column there are different exposures corresponding to ASA 80, ASA160, ASA 320, ASA40, and ASA 20. For the last two rows the ASA20 appears again in the first column. The X's in the lower right corner of images indicate which images subsequent prints were made from.
Contact Print of Test Film (Ferrania P30 Alpha)
The results indicate the best results are at 1 or 2 stops over exposed. At box speed the negatives are noticeably thin, even with 17% extra developing time. My results do not make me believe the film is as fast as Ferrania indicates.

Here is a look at the negatives themselves in the same order to see the thinness present in the ASA80 exposures.
Negatives


I made a series of split contrast prints to see if I could perceive differences. The first was from I judged best from the contact print. That is ASA 20 with development -17% shorter dev. time.This cam out on the first try by judging from test strips. The fact it used the same hard and soft filtration indicates to me it is balanced in terms of contrast.
ASA 20 Dev -17% f11+1ND #5 16 sec #00 6 sec
Next is using the nominal development. This took more work. It is balanced but not quite the same darkness as the reference above so I tried to correct that in the next print. Note it is also about a stop thinner.

ASA 80 Dev Nom f22+1ND #5 32 sec #00 32 sec
Same as above though printed darker. Difficult to see but there is a distinct lack of range in the image.
ASA 80 Dev Nom f22+1ND #5 32 sec #00 45 sec

These disappointing results led me to look for the experience of others online. Most of these seem to be people who don't print the results and scan them instead. Also most people used the developer they had rather than D76 which has the highest recommendation from Ferrania. This meant there were few comments on the thinness of the negatives or their print-ability. Some of these |I list below for reference.




I did find one post at Photo-Analogue who made tests and contact prints like I did.
Insoluble PancakePhotrio (DPUG+APUG), and Francesco Goffredo all make mention of lower ISO. These tests did not use D76 developer but they used a variety of there developers and development times. The results were very similar to mine and indicated the film was ASA 20 or 40 for most development.

8/12/2017

Salt Print on Old Photographic Paper

In previous posts I explored using expired 4x5 film emulsion as a basis for making salt prints. I reasoned that if better results were had with sized paper then it should be possible to use expired film as 'sized plastic'. This worked though it is difficult to achieve consistent results. I then extended this to expired photographic plates and achieved some success there. The next 'frontier' is to apply the same techniques to expired paper.

Preparing the Paper

Again I took a few full sheets of ORWO black and white paper and fixed it for 5 minutes in rapid fixer.  Then I washed for 10 minutes as one would a developed print. The point of all this is to remove all the silver from the emulsion. I then dried the paper thoroughly.

Salting the Paper

Next I immersed the paper in salt solution for about 10 minutes. Previous work with film found that insufficient time in the salt solution levels the result insensitive as the salt has not fully been absorbed into the gelatin. Again this is dried.

Sensitizing

For the sensitization step here I decided to tape down the edges of the paper using Scotch tape to a sheet of Perspex. This would keep the silver nitrate solution off the back of the paper. Next I poured the solution next to the paper and used a plastic ruler to push the solution evenly around the paper. I made sure to cover all the paper by spreading the solution a number of times. The paper will pucker as it expands from the moisture. Once this is complete I dried the whole sheet of Perspex on a hot plate under a box to keep out stray light.

Once dried the paper is ready to use and should be used in a day or two. Again I contacted printed a 4x5 negative. The first at 6 minutes and the second at 10 minutes. The day was partly cloudy and so the exposures were not consistent. Indeed the second exposure was lighter.

Paper under negative sandwiched under glass after exposure.
Exposed paper with negative removed before fixing.
Print after salt water fixing.
Print after hypo fix.
6 Minute Exposure

10 Minute exposure

Salt Prints on Expired Glass Plates

Glass Plates

In a past post I explored salt prints on expired 4x5 film. I thought this technique should apply to old glass plates. I had experimented in the past with glass plates in the darkroom to various success. I had some old Air Ministry plates from the Second World War which were fogged nearly to blackness. These would be good candidates for experimentation.
Air Ministry Plates Box

Clearing the Plates

My first attempt resulted in a lot of learning :). I soaked the plates in fixer for about 5 minutes until all of the milky emulsion turned clear. I then washed and scrubbed the green anti halation dye from the back of the plates. I then set them out to dry.

Salting the Plate

My first attempt at this was to wet the plate thoroughly with my 2% salt solution with no citric acid. More reading indicated perhaps sodium citrate but not citric acid. I did this with a small piece of sponge giving what I though was ample time for the salt to soak into the emulsion. I then dried the plate.

Sensitizing the Plate

With the dried salted plate I then applied the silver nitrate solution by pouring a small amount on the plate and then distributing it using a small piece of sponge. As the emulsion swelled I had to be careful to not remove or tear the emulsion. I would pour more solution out and work it into the emulsion. I then squeegeed away the excess being careful to use gloves to keep it off my skin.

Next I exposed the plate on an overcast day. Previously I had full sunlight and could expose for 6 minutes which worked out well. Now I tried it by eye. Occasional rain caused me to interrupt what was probably at least 15 minutes of exposure.

It was apparent when looking at the negative sandwich that there was a lot of splotchiness. I could discern places where I had pooled the silver nitrate on the glass pate and lots of streaking.  The result is shown below.
First attempt

 So my next attempt I revised my methods. I would soak the plates in each solution for at least 5 minutes to allow a complete and even absorption into the emulsion. This proved more effective. A full immersion in the salt solution as above, followed by drying then sensitizing by placing the plate in a shallow dish not much larger than the plate. (100ml of silver nitrate solution just barely covers the plate.). This was in turn dried. I felt satisfied with the result as the emulsion took on a milky tone similar to ortho film or what the plates looked like before I soaked them in fixer.

Again I made my negative sandwich and exposed the print for what I thought was sufficient time looking at the back side of the plate. I soaked the plate in salt water then fixed it. The result was much better. The print suffers from a negative with too little contrast. However the result was even across the entire negative. See below....

Some flaws are apparent. The black patch in the lower left is probably an area where the original silver emulsion had not been completely fixed away before the sensitization. The white blotches are where mold had attacked the emulsion . Below you can see the tell tale tendrils as the mold grows and eats into the emulsion. There is also a scratch of unknown origin (perhaps from the squeegee).

Mold in the emulsion
So it is clear the new techniques hold promise. Plates with less problems with the emulsion should create good results.
Below are some other plates. These I dried after sensitization on the plate warmer on the hob under a small box to keep the light off. The temperature was about 50C and did not seem to adversely affect the results.
Snow scene at night
 This is a photo my grandfather made in New England. After having a negative adhere to a plate I printed this emulsion side away from the plate, some softness is seen as a result. There are a few blotches and flaws I attribute to excess silver nitrate on the emulsion. The exposure was good (10 minutes strong sun) with a small amount of bronzing in the tree trunks though not apparent in the scan.
This print has a scraped piece of emulsion and some blotching. The exposure is really good and shows great range.
Young Tom
 This is another photo my grandfather took this time of my dad in the desert around Phoenix. This one was underexposed (6 minutes) and has some dark blotches.
Young Tom 2
 This is another photo my grandfather took of my dad. This time I ran a 15 minute exposure. Much bronzing was present (see warnings lower down) though not apparent when viewed from the non-emulsion side.  I oriented the negative to avoid the large blot on the left. This was created by a wet plate in contact with a negative.

Selenium Toning

I did a  couple of simple experiments using selenium toning. Normally gold or palladium toning is recommended for salt prints. I don't have any however. At first I tried 1+19 dilution and soaked one end of the plate before immersing it all. This segment is still apparent even though I left the plate soaking for at least 10 minutes. The color turned cooler or more gray and the image darkened as well.
Selenium Toned 1+19
 Next I toned the same plate with selenium 1+3. Here after just a few minutes the image turned very light. 
Selenium Toned 1+3

Newer Ilford Plates

Given the trouble I had with these very old plates and particularly mold, I opted to try again with new Ilford plates. I don't know their age but when inspected they showed no signs of mold.
Ilford Plates
I sensitized and exposed these plates in the same way as the others. The results that I got were more satisfying.

Stopping the Plates from Sticking

These plates were very susceptible to sticking to the negative. This scared me enough to try something drastic. I stretched a piece of cling film or saran wrap over the plate's emulsion before placing the negative on top. This worked really well as I cannot discern any visible effect on the image and I could place my negative safely emulsion side down. 

Bedroom
Cactus

Warnings

Exposure is unusual to judge on plates. One tends to look through the plate into some light source or a white wall. However when you mount the plate on white paper it will be darker and I would wager by exactly one stop. When mounted with the emulsion directly against the paper the light must travel through the plate before reaching your eye. This makes the attenuation of the light twice that when viewed using a distant wall where the light only passes once through the plate. This means a seemingly under-exposed plate will be OK once mounted on paper. One can also experiment with different backing materials and use the transparency effectively.

I did find one case where the sensitized emulsion had not dried properly and stuck to the negative emulsion which was very difficult to peel apart. It would have been better probably to soak them apart to avoid the chance of ruining the negative. However a side effect of this was that the glass plate took on a brown tone wherever it stuck to the negative. And over time the negative also acquired a brown tone.

I believe that using a squeegee to remove the excess silver nitrate when sensitizing is very important to achieve consistent results.  Any blotchiness seems to be the result of pooled or excess silver nitrate on the emulsion. The difficulty is that the squeegee can remove or scratch the emulsion if one is not careful. The same may also be true of applying the salt. I squeegee the back of the plate to remove excess silver nitrate but this is mostly to conserve and expensive solution. Any chemicals on the back of the plate wash off in the fixing and washing processes.

Bronzing is a well known effect when the salt print is over-exposed. It results in a greenish tinge in the over exposed areas. If viewed from the emulsion side the bronzing is apparent and detracts significantly from the image. However because this is a transparency when viewed from the other side of the plate the bronzing is no longer apparent. This could be an advantage over paper salt prints.
Young Tom 2 Bronzing example



Salt Print Transparencies on Expired Film

Always interested in trying something new I decided to try salt printing the predecessor to black and white film photography. I did the usual perusal on the web



And many other articles a Google away. Basically salt (kosher or sea salt as we shall see later) and silver nitrate. Citric acid is helpful.

While reading about traditional paper-based prints one sees an emphasis on using sized paper. Now sized paper typically means a gelatin (or other material like arrowroot) coating. The sizing allows the silver image to sit on the top of the paper fibers rather than in them. This is seen as producing a sharper image. Some however prefer the un-sized paper as they like the depth of the image.

In reading this it occurred to me that photographic film is really just sized plastic film. I have a few boxes of expired 4x5 film. I thought I should try to use them as a salt print medium. I would take the unexposed sheets and plunge them directly into fixer for 5 minutes to remove all of the silver. Then I would have to thoroughly wash and dry the film. Then I should have nothing but gelatin coated plastic film.

Well I finally got around to trying out my idea. Like most starts this one was fraught with problems and errors that also show the promise. My first mistake was to use table salt. Table salt has additives that are used as anti-caking agents. Mine has Sodium Hexacyanoferrate III. The next was to assume that gelatin only coated the emulsion side of the film. It didn't in this case, it was on both sides.

So when salting the film I let salt get on the back side. Later when the salted film dried I made the same mistake with the silver nitrate solution. I reasoned at the time it would all would easily clean off the Mylar surface. With paper in salt printing one has to be careful to keep the chemicals off the back of the paper as they get absorbed and can lead to undesirable staining of the image. I thought my method would be immune to this. What happened was an uneven coating on the back which had emulsion. Some of this coating exhibited a bright blue color. I reasoned this was the anti-caking agent losing its sodium which bound to the nitrate of the silver nitrate to create sodium nitrate and Prussian blue.  In some areas though the salt and silver nitrate created silver chloride in what I assume were areas with different chemical equilibrium. These in turn created brown pools.

As seen below the image shows great promise however and so encourages me to correct some of my obvious errors.

Saxophone Salt Print on 4x5 film (Glenn Morse photo) Exposed for 6 minutes.

The next attempt I mixed a fresh batch of salt. This time 2% sea salt (2gm per 100ml) with 5gm of citric acid. I also added 4 gm of citric acid to the 12% silver nitrate solution. I added it to the salt to neutralize any buffer that might be in any paper I had (I was also testing on paper at this time). Citric acid in silver nitrate is supposed to help it keep longer.

Now I washed thoroughly the 2 remaining pieces of silver-free film I had already coated with the old salt solution. I did this by soaking them in fresh water then drying them. I then re-coated them in salt this time by soaking each sheet for 3 minutes in the new salt solution to allow the gelatin time to swell and absorb the salt water. I squeegeed the remaining salt water away to prevent excess salt deposits on the surface. These I then set in the warm sun to dry. Though this meant salt was again on the back of the film I reasoned that as long as I kept the silver nitrate off of the back I would be OK.

Next with the dry film I taped them down emulsion side up (film notches in the upper right corner) to a sheet of Plexiglas with tape around the entire periphery to seal the back side of the film.  I then dipped a small piece of sponge in silver nitrate and rubbed the solution across both pieces of film. I did this repeatedly and tried to make sure the gelatin had swollen and taken the silver nitrate. I then squeegeed away the excess being careful to use gloves to keep it off my skin. These I then set in a dark cupboard to dry.
Film taped on Plexiglas with silver nitrate applied. Note each has its own tint. This because the original film sources are different.
 Next I removed the dried film and taped the negative on top as shown.
Negative hinge-taped to sensitized film.

 Then I clamped the negative under a sheet of glass to place in the sun.
Ready to put in the sun. 
I let the first one exposed for 5 minutes under direct sunlight. Unlike paper I can inspect the exposure without taking the print from the frame. The fact it is a transparency and mounted on Plexiglas means I can look at the underside to judge the exposure. After a few minutes the characteristic orange brown color appears.

Exposed film and negative sandwich.
The print as it emerges from the sunlight. 
A clear image emerges and none of the pools of brown from my first attempt. I then washed the print first in a bath of sea salt and citric acid where a milky substance of undeveloped silver and salt (silver chloride) washes away. I then washed about 5 minutes in water before fixing for 5 minutes in hypo fixer. Followed by 5 minutes water wash, 5 minutes hypo clear and then 5 minutes final wash. The result  below.
Final salt print transparency 5 minute exposure. 
The result is very pleasing. I made a second print with the remaining sensitized sheet. This sheet was was troublesome. It exhibited what looked like mineral deposits and cloudy areas when dried after sensitization.
Second film with cloudiness and deposits visible. 
I exposed this one at 10 minutes (direct sun) to see what would happen with a longer exposure and the undeveloped result is one that is mottled and almost looks bronze which could indicate over exposure. It is pretty in it own way.
Undeveloped second film with 10 minute exposure.
Washing and fixing gives this result.
Finished second salt print 10 minutes exposure. 
This second emulsion was a bit more tortured and perhaps torn. These last two had gone through a lot of soaking and handling which isn't helpful. Also each film was sourced from a different negative film. The last one from old Ilford Ortho film, the previous from old Ilford FP4+ and the first from Ilford FP3. Each probably has a different emulsion coating as they all had a subtle color hue fro
m yellow to pink to blue.

I think the results are great and with some clever mounting could be very effective.

Here is the previous print mounted on white paper for contrast and framed. It is a small jewel to behold as it holds a great deal of detail and carries a warm metallic sheen to it.
Framed Salt Print Transparency

Exposure Judgement

Exposure is unusual to judge on transparencies. One tends to look through the transparency into some light source or a white wall. However when you mount the transparency on white paper it will be darker and I would wager by exactly one stop. When mounted with the emulsion directly against the paper the light must travel through the transparency before reaching your eye. This makes the attenuation of the light twice that when viewed using a distant wall where the light only passes once through the transparency. This means a seemingly under-exposed transparency will be OK once mounted on paper. One can also experiment with different backing materials and use the transparency effectively.

A Couple More Examples

Two more photos from my Grandfather Cushman Morse.
Cactus

Picacho Peak 

6/17/2017

Black and White Print from a Color Slide

I was scanning some of my brother's 35mm Kodachrome slides from a backpacking trip he did many years ago in the Mazatzal's in central Arizona. I was struck by one photo of some Manzanita bushes and thought that would be good to print in Black and White. The slide is below.



I would need to transform it from a color positive to a black and white negative. I have done this before with a paper inter-negative but settled on a film inter-negative which I have done before as well. This time however I decided to try a different method of creating an inter-negative.

The slide is 35 mm so I figured 6 x 4.5 cm would be a close enough fit for aspect ratio. I didn't want to deal with roll film as I would get committed to an entire roll of film. I can also get four of this size negative from a sheet of 4x5 film. So I started with some Fomapan 100 film which I cut to the 5x4.5 cm size pieces.

I mounted the slide in the enlarger and adjusted it to focus as a 6 x 4.5 sized image. This required me to stack some text books up under my easel. I used a small easel as the projection surface and taped down a small corner of thick black paper so that I could align the film in the dark. (No red safe light for this as I am using panchromatic film.)
8x10 easel with black paper corner on stack of text books.

The projected slide aligned with the black paper corner
With this now focused and aligned I needed to determine the exposure. I metered at ASA 80 and read 4 seconds at f22 with the enlarger set to f4. I am unsure of my references so I used a range from f11 at 4" to f22 at 1". The results at the slower end of the range were superior. My first batch at the faster end of the range were dark (overexposed) and contrasty. The second batch at the slower end I attempted to reduce contrast by developing at 4:30 minutes vs 5:00 minutes in the case of the first batch.

With the high contrast I also experiment with some expired Ilford HP4 film. The idea is the fogging would restrain the contrast. It did as it turns out reduce the contrast but seems to have compressed the tonal range.

Finally I took the the best examples and printed them. The first is based on a Foma 100 negative. With no high contrast filtration using only the low contrast filter it is apparent the negative is very contrasty. There is a darkened band along the bottom of the print I cannot explain.
Foma 100 Negative Printed f11 #5 0 sec #00 54 sec
Finally the negative based on the expired film is printed. It is clearly a more dense negative as it was printed at f4 (versus f11 in the print above). It is also has less contrast as I had to add #5 filtration to bring up the contrast. In any case the tonal range is compressed and this is easiest seen in the leaves in the upper right.
Old Ilford HP5 Negative Printed f4 #5 10 sec #00 54 sec
Here is a Photoshop conversion of the scanned color slide to black and white for reference. I think the endeavor was a success.
Digital conversion from slide

Retrospective:

The next time I attempt this I am inclined to do things differently. First the cutting of 4x5 film into pieces was fraught with error as it has to be done entirely in the dark. This meant the pieces were rarely cut to the straight dimensions or on square angles. This is despite putting guides in place on my cutter to help in the dark. The film took a lot of handling as well and this meant some damage was inevitable. Especially trying to load the film reel and develop the film.

If I attempt this again I would take a full sheet of film and expose each corner one at a time. Rotating the film for each exposure. I would make a mask for the 6 x 4.5 section that would hinge over the film on a piece of tape and protect the rest of the film sheet from exposure.  Then I could develop the entire sheet (much easier) and finally cut the individual images from the sheet for development once dried.

Update:

I had some time this weekend to investigate my retrospective comments I made above. I made the hinged mask from black paper. Below you can see the new film mask in open and closed position. The 4x5 film sheet is 10 cm on its shortest edge. The rotation of the film is such that a short side of the image is next to a long side of the next image. This restricts my original idea of 6x4.5 cm to 5.5x4.5 cm as a 4.5 cm and 5.5 cm edge sums to 10 cm. The long edge of the film represents no problem here. One could decide to mask it square at 5x5cm there are not real magic dimensions here. I just need to fit my enlarger negative holder in this case it is limited to 6x6 cm. Such size or larger would reduce one to only 2 negatives per sheet however. With the long dimension being about 12.5 cm 6x6 cm is the practical limit for multiple negatives on a sheet.
Film mask in closed position

Film mask in open position
In use the only real problem happened when the film slid under the alignment corner in the upper left hand corner. This happens if one is not very careful aligning the negative which is easy to do in the dark. When this happens the film appears above or to the left of the mask and leaves a small overexposed area from a subsequent exposure. You can see this in the scanned negatives below as small black rectangles in the lower left and lower right images.
4x5 Negative of Live Oak. with 4 bracketed images.
Counterclockwise from upper left (f16 4sec, f22 4 sec, f22 2sec, f22 1 sec) 
Live Oak Slide Image
The next one worked better as I didn't make the above mistake.
4x5 Negative of Agave. with 4 bracketed images.
Counterclockwise from upper left (f16 4sec, f22 4 sec, f22 2sec, f22 1 sec) 
Agave Slide Original (note I cropped the negatives I made

Live Oak Print Experience

With the Live Oak negative I pick the best example to print. In this case its was the the f22 2 second exposure that got ruined with the exposed square in it. I cropped around this however. The least exposed while not ruined seemed to have less detail in the highlights and I am more interested in learning how to get the best print.

Printing the scenes in the central Arizona mountains is challenging. The challenge is made worse by the introduction of an inter-negative. A sunny and bright day in Arizona has extreme contrasts and they are exhibited in these prints. Some areas get direct sunshine and others are in shade. Furthermore the inter-negative introduces another increase in contrast at the micro as well as macro contrast level. This is exhibited by the fact that printing is almost entirely done with a #00 filter. It does not help that in my experience Fomapan 100 film is inherently higher contrast.

Below are some test prints I did. The first was from a read of the #00 test strip and did well in the shady portion though the upper left with direct sunshine suffered.
Kentmere VC Select Print f16 #00 64sec
The upper left is bright and the print seems to me to lose tonal balance. One can see the challenge my brother faced in getting the original Kodachrome slide exposed properly as well as shooting ASA 64 film and the notorious narrow range of Kodachrome the original slide struggles to capture this range as well. I was also aware my brother was shooting wide open as the depth of field indicates. The boulder in the foreground is out of focus as is the background. I surmise this is the slow film coupled with shooting in the dense shade of the live oak tree.

The next attempt I burned the upper left portion for an additional 30 seconds. This brought the print back into better balance as seen below.
Kentmere VC Select Print f16 #00 64 sec burn upper left 30 sec
Next I tried the densest negative (exposed at f16 for 4 seconds) to see if it could mitigate the contrast. On the contrary it was worse as shown by the straight print below.
Kentmere VC Select Print f8 #00 45 sec 

Agave Print Experience

Next I printed the agave negative. Again I selected the f22 at 2 second exposure of this batch as the best. By now I had abandoned a #5 test strip and stayed with #00. I started out with f16 for the first print as follows and exposed the paper for 64 seconds. Again the left side of the photo suffered from direct sunlight.
Kentmere VC Select Print f16 #00 64 sec

The next print I exposed one stop faster at f11 and 32 seconds brought the left side of the print into balance by burning for 15 seconds on the left side. Much more satisfactory.
Kentmere VC Select Print  f11 #00 32 sec burn left side 15 sec

Revisiting the Manzanita Negative and Print Experience

Given my success with the new masking technique I decided I would be remiss in not using it for the original slide I wanted to print of the Manzanita trees. I also wanted to try some other film. I have some Delta 100 4x5 film which should be superior. So I used the same exposure settings on a sheet of Delta film and got the following.I developed it with 10% less development time and hoped this might reign in any contrast problems at one of the exposures.
Ilford Delta 100
Counterclockwise from upper left (f16 4sec, f22 4 sec, f22 2sec, f22 1 sec) 

Next I printed from the f22 1 sec negative. Again I had pretty high contrast and used almost entirely #00 filter.
 Kentmere VC Select Print f22 #0 45 #5 5 sec

I next tried the f22 4 second negative to see if it improved in terms of contrast. It seemed to as the print improved with the addition of number 5 filtration. The result is below. I cropped it differently than the other. It was here I noted small white spots in the print. There is nothing physically on the emulsion of the negative so I can only surmise the film had some fine dust on it when it was exposed.
 Kentmere VC Select Print f22 #00 54 sec #5 16 sec

Conclusion:

For me this worked very well in the end. I think it will remain in my toolbox for finding new material to print. I have a number of my own slides and my brother's that I may I may wish to print.