A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[StoneNYC]

You're going to hate printing in the darkroom when you get around to it...

and b/w negatives are not like transparencies. either get used to that fact or get used to making substandard prints.

What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?

 

[wildbill]

Now all you need is an Imacon, and the discussion will finally be over.

I had one (older model) for a while and it was okay. Still uses a ccd instead of PMT's.
I own a couple Screen dts-1030ai's now but that's not up for discussion here. I paid $225 for one and $99 for the other! Both on ebay.

 

[StoneNYC]

I had one (older model) for a while and it was okay. Still uses a ccd instead of PMT's.
I own a couple Screen dts-1030ai's now but that's not up for discussion here. I paid $225 for one and $99 for the other! Both on ebay.

Honestly I wouldn't know what a "good" scanner or not is, unless it says "drum scanner" I wouldn't even know. The only reason I settled on the V750 is that it was the only scanner that would do large format within my price range.

 

[markbarendt]

You're going to hate printing in the darkroom when you get around to it...

and b/w negatives are not like transparencies. either get used to that fact or get used to making substandard prints.

Yep.

What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?

Have you read "The Negative" by Adams?

 

[Chris Lange]

What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html

 

[eddie]

What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?

I can't answer for Chris but, for me, making a negative is a technical exercise. Making a print is an expressive one. It requires more effort to make a good print than a good negative. Add all the other decisions (paper/surface/developer/toning/etc.) and printing necessitates much more thought.

 

[miha]

What's the purpose of scaring people off? Stone, printing is easy enough, I would recommend you to read a good book on printing when ready and stick to it.

 

[Xmas]

Everyone is different.

But you don't need technical perfection in a neg or print to get a print in an exhibition or to sell.

You don't need to look at pixels or silvergrains or edge sharpness.

You do need silver in your zone 1 'shadow' areas preferably without intensification.

Some mid tone differentiation and not too much blown in highlights.

Some people can split burn and dodge a bad neg and have a keeper appear in the tray in 15 minutes. I know one. Myself I can destroy a 25 box of gillee and a 25 box of AgBr in one weekend on one neg all rejects, note I proof hybrid.

If you are doing a 8x10 you need to look at it from 24 inches. If you can see grain it may not matter. If there is blur it may not matter. If parts of a face are zone 0, that may not matter, you might have burnt them in.

Is it going to be a happy pill on a bedside table in 40 years time, for some one else, is a possible pass criteria.

Will you get sufficient 'payback'.

Note my 8x10s have plenty of grain...

 

[markbarendt]

What's the purpose of scaring people off? Stone, printing is easy enough, I would recommend you to read a good book on printing when ready and stick to it.

Miha you're right, basic printing isn't terribly hard. As I remember I've even suggested that Stone try some contact printing with his 4x5s so that he could get a feel for it.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yep.



Have you read "The Negative" by Adams?

I tried, but it was an old version and a lot of the terminology I didn't understand at the time. I found it very hard to follow and either didn't understand or was bored out of my mind.

 

[StoneNYC]

What's the purpose of scaring people off? Stone, printing is easy enough, I would recommend you to read a good book on printing when ready and stick to it.

Thanks, I'm sure when I'm ready for it, the negative and other books will make more sense

 

[StoneNYC]

Everyone is different.

But you don't need technical perfection in a neg or print to get a print in an exhibition or to sell.

You don't need to look at pixels or silvergrains or edge sharpness.

You do need silver in your zone 1 'shadow' areas preferably without intensification.

Some mid tone differentiation and not too much blown in highlights.

Some people can split burn and dodge a bad neg and have a keeper appear in the tray in 15 minutes. I know one. Myself I can destroy a 25 box of gillee and a 25 box of AgBr in one weekend on one neg all rejects, note I proof hybrid.

If you are doing a 8x10 you need to look at it from 24 inches. If you can see grain it may not matter. If there is blur it may not matter. If parts of a face are zone 0, that may not matter, you might have burnt them in.

Is it going to be a happy pill on a bedside table in 40 years time, for some one else, is a possible pass criteria.

Will you get sufficient 'payback'.

Note my 8x10s have plenty of grain...

Wish they made 4x5 paper already cut, cutting in a dark tent is hard and I've tried cutting down larger film sheets to smaller and in the dark bag I just don't have the technique for it, if I had a darkroom that would be another story I suppose, but I don't really enjoy it and would rather it be done for me.

 

[markbarendt]

What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?

I think what Chris is getting at Stone, is that "perfect" exposure is actually not the most important factor in printing a negative. Negatives across a wide range of exposures can be printed very nicely.

Consistent camera exposure does make printing easier in that you won't need to adjust enlarger exposure as much, that only means your starting point will be the same.

Adjusting contrast to match the paper though is a completely different animal, and it's an animal you are not practicing with. Each adjustment to contrast takes an adjustment to exposure, and those changes require a test print that takes a significant amount of time. Fine tuning contrast for a single negative shot in the wild (outside a studio where all the variables are controlled) may take me 5-8 hours spread over several weeks when I'm fine tuning.

Same thing with the warm/cool tone balance.

Burn and dodge and selective bleaching and other techniques can also make significant improvements.

Sure you can get something on paper pretty easily, but getting it where you like it... ????

 

[StoneNYC]

I think what Chris is getting at Stone, is that "perfect" exposure is actually not the most important factor in printing a negative. Negatives across a wide range of exposures can be printed very nicely.

Consistent camera exposure does make printing easier in that you won't need to adjust enlarger exposure as much, that only means your starting point will be the same.

Adjusting contrast to match the paper though is a completely different animal, and it's an animal you are not practicing with. Each adjustment to contrast takes an adjustment to exposure, and those changes require a test print that takes a significant amount of time. Fine tuning contrast for a single negative shot in the wild (outside a studio where all the variables are controlled) may take me 5-8 hours spread over several weeks when I'm fine tuning.

Same thing with the warm/cool tone balance.

Burn and dodge and selective bleaching and other techniques can also make significant improvements.

Sure you can get something on paper pretty easily, but getting it where you like it... ????

I try to shoot so that the image I get is the exposure I want it to be, so I feel that I shouldn't have to adjust that much because if my exposure is made for what I want it to look like (over or under exposed on purpose for example blowing highlights on purpose for a "look" etc, shouldn't it print just as I've exposed it? Why would I have to fiddle with it TOO much if it's properly exposed?

 

[markbarendt]

I try to shoot so that the image I get is the exposure I want it to be, so I feel that I shouldn't have to adjust that much because if my exposure is made for what I want it to look like (over or under exposed on purpose for example blowing highlights on purpose for a "look" etc, shouldn't it print just as I've exposed it? Why would I have to fiddle with it TOO much if it's properly exposed?

You are thinking that there is some absolute perfect exposure with a negative that will define paper placement, there isn't.

The enlarger is your camera, the film is your scene, the paper is your film.

Just as you have struggled with your choices about which film and developer and how to develop and all that jazz and more; all those variables exist for the printing process.

For example changing from glossy to pearl surface paper, or vice versa, may make you rethink the paper grade choice.

 

[markbarendt]

Wish they made 4x5 paper already cut, cutting in a dark tent is hard and I've tried cutting down larger film sheets to smaller and in the dark bag I just don't have the technique for it, if I had a darkroom that would be another story I suppose, but I don't really enjoy it and would rather it be done for me.

4x6 Dead Link Removed

4x5 Dead Link Removed

 

[canuhead]

I'll add to the 38 pages.

EVERY negative is going to need some translation in the darkroom when printing. If you want a mediocre print, then yeah, you can print it straight (which is what it sounds like you want to do with minimal manipulations, dodge/burn) and be done with it.

If however, you have something to say/express, then you're going to have to become familiar with darkroom processes/skills techniques/voodoo and sticking to one film one developer, as many here suggest, will make it easier for you, otherwise your negatives will be all over the place which will mean more work in the darkroom/computer.

fwiw, I've settled on Trix/TXP etc and Rodinal (rotary in a Jobo) with some negs getting bathed in PMK.

soooo much good advice in this thread for anyone seeking the mythical processing nirvana.

 

[eddie]

I try to shoot so that the image I get is the exposure I want it to be, so I feel that I shouldn't have to adjust that much because if my exposure is made for what I want it to look like (over or under exposed on purpose for example blowing highlights on purpose for a "look" etc, shouldn't it print just as I've exposed it? Why would I have to fiddle with it TOO much if it's properly exposed?

Well, a good negative is definitely the first step. However, when you start to print, the paper choice plays a big part. Even with VC papers, a Grade 3 on my Ilford doesn't have the same contrast as a Grade 3 on my Forte. And, if you tone, papers react differently to various toners. It's the reason why Zone System users have to calibrate their systems with a specific paper.

You're gonna like printing, once you start. I do fear an exponential increase in your posts, though, when you do...

 

[markbarendt]

Stone, please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to discourage you from printing, quite the opposite. But you aren't tailoring your current processes to paper, you are tailoring them to a scanner.

I'm in the mood for a new endeavor so over the weekend I ordered myself some Rollo-Pyro for a portrait project.

My intent is to put together an end-to-end process that will print almost automatically. It is going to take a heck of a lot of work to get there.

Every shot will be metered with an incident meter.

I will use artificial means (flash/skrims/...) to control subject placement on the curve instead of burning and dodging.

The development of the film will be tried, tested, retested, and tailored to print as expected on the exact brand, size, surface, and print grade paper I intend.

I hope to control every link in the chain; DOF, color of tone, what I focus on, the exact same time in development and temperature of the chemicals every time, same lens, same FP-4+, same enlarger and enlarger lens...

I hope that once I have the system set-in-stone that the whole set of prints "matches" in terms of look. Take any two, three, or twelve, out of the whole set and put them together on their own and viewers will still understand that they belong as part of a set.

I intend to do something similar with a faster film too.

The hope is to define a style that I can be known for, to make salable products, and to keep the time in the darkroom manageable.

Even with all that exactness, I still expect to have to adjust the enlarger here and there to make them match. Just the way it is.

 

[markbarendt]

You're gonna like printing, once you start. I do fear an exponential increase in your posts, though, when you do...

Probably.

 

[StoneNYC]

4x6 Dead Link Removed

4x5 Dead Link Removed

Oh thanks, someone told me they didn't make any so I just assumed I never looked, serves me right... Thanks again

 

[StoneNYC]

You are thinking that there is some absolute perfect exposure with a negative that will define paper placement, there isn't.

The enlarger is your camera, the film is your scene, the paper is your film.

Just as you have struggled with your choices about which film and developer and how to develop and all that jazz and more; all those variables exist for the printing process.

For example changing from glossy to pearl surface paper, or vice versa, may make you rethink the paper grade choice.

This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.

 

[StoneNYC]

Post #376 about sums up the whole problem with this guy.

Because at the time I didn't even know what HYPO was, because it's not called that anymore... I said the terminology was confusing because I tried to find the elements that were mentioned to BUY them to start developing and none of them existed and it was confusing... I should go back and read now that I understand more, but everything in time... I know that if I overwhelm myself with too much info that I don't understand I begin to dislike what I'm doing and gravitate away from it, so I'm learning in a pattern that my brain can absorb and still stay invested and interested in what I'm doing (shooting film). It's the same reason I can't work in Photoshop, it's too difficult to understand and too overwhelming, I need to learn it in bits and pieces. It doesn't mean I can't understand it ever, it just means I need to build my knowledge base slowly.

 

[Dinesh]

This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.

I'm such a masochist.

I can't look away!

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.

You don't really understand what you are saying here... What do you REALLY mean "shot and developed to look a certain way"? We're not talking about direct positives, like slide film. A negative is an intermediate step. If you're talking about your experience thus far then "shot and developed to look a certain way" is simply referring to how YOUR scans look... on your scanner, with your workflow, on your monitor and so on. If you changed that equipment or process then your "look a certain way" would also change.

By calibrating you negative / wet print system you can you can achieve predictable results, but even then you have so many controls in the printing stage that aren't available when you make an exposure with the camera that you are quite likely to want to make adjustments in an expressive way.