As Ralph mentioned, you might want to consider an enlarging meter considering the amount of paper you are using to get to the final print.I’m new to silver gelatin printing. I did a workshop recently, and today I had my first solo printing session. I picked a negative I wanted to work on, and 5 hours later, I was happy with the results. However, it took me 15 images to get there. I’m coming from platinum palladium printing with digital negatives, where, once my workflow is calibrated, I get the desired results every time in one shot. This is not the case with real negatives.
Today, I started with a test strip, followed by a test print, and then a few more with dodging and burning. I decided to try multigrade filters and split-grade to get details in both the shadows and highlights of the very contrasty negative. I experimented with several combinations until I achieved a print I liked. I finished the final print using split-grading, plus some dodging and burning.
I got an image I like, but it took a while. I’d appreciate advice on how to get quicker results without wasting so much paper and time, yet without sacrificing the quality. Today’s session alone used up 6 sheets of 11x14 Ilford MG FB WT paper, and I have at least 150-200 negatives I want to print. I'd be happy to reduce waste by at least 50%.
So, just to clarify, my question is about practical advices and techniques on how to achieve the desired results quicker, not necessarily how to save money by buying cheaper paper and chemistry.
How many images do you print? How many iterations does it take for you to get to the final print? Is my workflow right, and how can it be improved?
Thank you.
Funny, as a trained, professional musician, I just can't listen to music in the darkroom; I'm distracted by it. I do listen to public radio news and talk shows though, which don't seem to keep me from concentrating on image-makingWhile I certainly sympathize, my indispensable darkroom tool -- for making great prints -- is my stereo. Without that, I could never spend enough time in there to fill my trash can.
Funny, as a trained, professional musician, I just can't listen to music in the darkroom; I'm distracted by it.
Late to the party here, but I'll offer a few things that help me arrive at a fine print more quickly. However, it seems like you have a good grasp of what needs to be done and the techniques involved. It's really just a matter of experience and streamlining (and accepting that fine prints take time, effort and lots of waste; my trash can is my best darkroom tool). Here goes:
Proper proofs of my negatives. These give me a real idea of the contrast setting I'll want to use to start with.
Formulating a real concept of what I want the final print to look like before I begin (with the caveat that I stay open to serendipitous alternatives!)
I make a test strip at my chosen contrast setting. If the contrast is close, I'll choose a base exposure and make a straight print, or a print with a bit of dodging/burning if those things are obviously needed somewhere. If the contrast needs to be changed a lot from the initial print, I start over and make a new test strip. However, if the contrast just needs tweaking, I'll guesstimate the necessary exposure adjustment and move on to making the initial print. I'm pretty good at getting close now.
After making the initial print, I evaluate; I hang the print on my viewing board and look at it for a while, with notepad in hand. I plan contrast and exposure changes and dodging and burning and split-grade schemes. My mantra: waste time, not paper.
Make big changes instead of incremental ones. It's easier and faster to go too far and then come back to an intermediate position or continue in the same direction without having taken all the intermediate steps. E.g., if my initial test strip isn't the right contrast, I'll change it by 30-40 CC on the color head. I think that's a lot, but often, it isn't and I've just saved all those attempts in-between. If it's too far, then I have a good idea of where to go back to. So, the third print is getting really close.
After this, unless the dodging and burning of the split-grade exposures are especially complicated, it's a matter of contemplation and refining.
When I do arrive at a final print that has been difficult to achieve, I'll make several so I don't have to go back and go through the whole process again when I want another print.
I keep detailed print exposure notes so I can get a good start on making the print again if I want to in the future. Some images I've reprinted more than five times, making batches each time.
Hope this helps a little,
Doremus
....you won't think of all that paper in your trash can as waste. Better that than printing a boring photo with just two sheets of paper, right ?
I find it is the good images that print to perfection in two sheets of paper.
In furtherance of Adams' adage "The negative is the score, the print is the performance," no matter how good the performance if the score is rubbish then the concert is rubbish.
I have found this to be so true!Make big changes instead of incremental ones. It's easier and faster to go too far and then come back to an intermediate position or continue in the same direction without having taken all the intermediate steps.
Indeed!... Recognizing the rotten negative is a big part of darkroom productivity. ...
...AA's Hernandez negative was far from what he considered "perfect".
just following Kodak's instructions gets me 99% of the way there (don't want to think of the years it took to come to that conclusion).
I doubt that anyone said PERFECT when viewing his pictures.Do you really think that Picasso ever said "PERFECT" when he stopped painting any of his works?
Funny, as a trained, professional musician, I just can't listen to music in the darkroom; I'm distracted by it. I do listen to public radio news and talk shows though, which don't seem to keep me from concentrating on image-making
Doremus
Variable soft-focus enlarger depending on the volume setting. Just a hint of blur - volume on 3. Really blurred - crank it up to 10!I can’t hear the timer go off if I listen to the stereo. Actually if I play over the AR93Q speakers and the Kenwood KA-81 amp the place shakes and it blurs my prints.
Since I’m in a rental community darkroom that I have to tidy up before I leave, I cannot (or don’t want to) leave my prints to dry there overnight. What’s the preferred quick-drying method, and does it affect the print? For example, in platinum palladium, I’ve noticed that blacks slightly fade if I blow dry versus natural drying. There’s a dehumidifier with a fan in a darkroom, so I thought that could be the solution, but I’m curious if that changes the print like platinum palladium does.
@Alex Benjamin mentioned f-stop printing, and I found many people suggesting using stops instead of seconds, and I understand why. It’s the only way to increase the amount of light consistently, but I’m still not sure what I’ll gain from that when my 3-second increments have worked so far, and I’ve found the correct exposure somewhere in the middle of the test strip. If 3 seconds turn out to be too much of an increment, I can do another test strip with 1 or 2 second increments. Also, by switching to f-stop printing, it would be much nicer to use one of these RH Designs meters that @RalphLambrecht suggested. Can you help me understand what I’m missing here?
A lot of people like f-stop timing. I found it unnecessarily complicated. I get the exact same results working with percentages. I make test strips in 25% or 30% increments, notate my dodging and burning in percentages of the base exposure and have learned to make exposure changes in percentages as well (e.g., an exposure increase of 20%, etc.)....
@Alex Benjamin mentioned f-stop printing, and I found many people suggesting using stops instead of seconds, and I understand why. It’s the only way to increase the amount of light consistently, but I’m still not sure what I’ll gain from that when my 3-second increments have worked so far, and I’ve found the correct exposure somewhere in the middle of the test strip. If 3 seconds turn out to be too much of an increment, I can do another test strip with 1 or 2 second increments. Also, by switching to f-stop printing, it would be much nicer to use one of these RH Designs meters that @RalphLambrecht suggested. Can you help me understand what I’m missing here?
...
Can you help me understand what I’m missing here?
|
-50% |
-40% |
-30% |
-20% |
-10% |
Base Exposure |
+20% |
+40% |
+60% |
+80% |
+100% |
|
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
|
7.5 |
9 |
10.5 |
12 |
13.5 |
15 |
18 |
21 |
24 |
27 |
30 |
|
-50% |
-40% |
-30% |
-20% |
-10% |
Base Exposure |
+20% |
+40% |
+60% |
+80% |
+100% |
|
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
2 |
|
-50% |
-40% |
-30% |
-20% |
-10% |
Base Exposure |
+20% |
+40% |
+60% |
+80% |
+100% |
|
-2.5 |
-2.5 |
-2.5 |
-2.5 |
-2.5 |
25 |
+5 |
+5 |
+5 |
+5 |
+5 |
|
12.5 |
15 |
17.5 |
20 |
22.5 |
|
30 |
35 |
40 |
45 |
50 |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?