Advices for less waste and better results

[hiroh]

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!

 

[AnselMortensen]

Your workflow seems right.
Efficiency will improve with experience.
I'm at the point where I do one test strip, one full-size test print, and make adjustments from there.
It helps to be mindful of "dry-down".
Prints that look great in the wash tray can dry-down too dark... (some folks microwave their test strips or prints).

Recently, I have found that I get my best results when I'm not in a hurry, have low expectations of productivity, and allow myself to "play" (experiment).
Having worked as a custom B/W printer in a photo lab for many years, I have to alter my mindset to avoid it becoming "work".

 

[MattKing]

Moved to the Enlarging sub-forum.
As for your question, I'd suggest making more prints on smaller paper - at least for a while. Perhaps even some cheaper paper - for a little while.
The most important thing to learn is to be able to discern what "look" one wants.
Then after that, it is important to learn how the image is affected by the adjustments available to you.
Then after that, how to evaluate negatives with an eye for which adjustments are likely to be required, based on examination of the negative image projected on to the easel - before even a test strip.
That is the sort of learning that benefits the most from repetition and familiarity and building an iterative loop.
For me, it helps if I start out trying to nail down the appearance of the mid-tones. But that approach might not resonate with you.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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!

you may want to invest in an enlarger/timer such as a Zonemaster by RHDesigns to get much faster to a work print, otherwise, I must compliment you on your current process. You are doing it properly!

 

[MARTIE]

In order to have an 'easy' time in the darkroom your negatives need to be 'perfect'. So my advice would be to start at the camera taking stage.

The more complicated the printing-map, the more time consuming and costly the darkroom process becomes.

 

[ic-racer]

It is not easy. Otherwise the computer graphics folks would all turn off their computers and use silver gelatin printing.

 

[guangong]

While photography and printing are superficially mechanical and appear easy, like any other art or craft, skill must be cultivated over time. Ironically, the higher one’s skill level, the more deficiencies in skill are realized. This never ends. There is a word that describes those who feel they have achieved the ultimate skill level: hacks.

 

[Ian C]

You can make smaller test prints on the same paper stock to get what you want.

If you use 11” x 14 paper, cut the paper in half across both dimensions to make 4 sheets of 5.5” x 7” (same aspect ratio as 11” x 14”). Use the lens’s optimum aperture for best image quality.

You’ll need to figure out the time differential to get the density the same on the larger print as on the smaller test prints. A light meter will help you get there quickly. For example, suppose that the 5.5” x 7” test print works best with the main exposure at a time T0 seconds. Remove the negative from the carrier and take a light meter reading at the center of the projection. Suppose that it’s f/22 + 0.7 stops.

Put the negative back into the carrier and resize and focus the projection for an 11” x 14” print. Remove the negative and meter the center of the projection as before. Suppose that it now reads f/16 + 0.2 stops—a difference of 1.5 stops.

The required time factor = 2^Δf (where Δf = the difference in stops).

Then factor = 2^1.5 = 2.83X

Multiply the original time T0 by 2.83 to get the new time. Since both the 5.5” x 7” test print and the 11” x 14” sheet are cut from the same supply, they should behave the same with respect to exposure.

This might not give precisely the same density on the 11” x 14” print as the smaller test prints, but it should be very close.

At this point it’s prudent to expose a couple of test patches in medium tone areas. Use patches of 1” x 2”, expose and process them, then compare them to the satisfactory test print. Fine-tune the exposure time if necessary.

For example, suppose that T0 = 10 seconds and the new time is computed as T = 28.3 seconds. Assume that the test patches indicate that a better value for T is 32 seconds.

Use this information to adjust the time factor if needed.

This gives a corrected difference in stops of [ln(32 seconds/10 seconds)]/ln2 = 1.68 stops.

The corrected factor is 2^1.68 = 3.20X

The same time factor should work for the burned and dodged areas as well.

This should reduce your waste considerably.

I discussed using a meter for this in a November 20, 2023 post. Once this differential between two projection sizes has been determined for a given enlarger it can be recorded for future use.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-larger-print-on-the-same-paper-stock.203076/

 

[dpurdy]

It is all about experience. But what I would suggest is having patience. Make as good a contact sheet as you can with the whole roll or with similar exposures cut from your rolls. Then pick one and make as close to right, contrast wise, print and then stop with that image.
Then look at your contact sheet and see if there are other images that will make a pretty close to right contrast print at about the same exposure. Print one offs of those and then stop for the day. Wash and dry your prints and set them out where you can look at them for a few days or indefinitely and think about what you wish was different in the printing. Contrast, dodging burning, overall exposure and anything else. then on another day start from that point.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I’d appreciate advice on how to get quicker results without wasting so much paper and time, yet without sacrificing the quality.

There's is no single answer, as a lot of it depends on the negative. Some are easy to work with, some difficult, some extremely difficult. High contrast, over- or under-development, blown highlights, over- or uner-exposure, all will affect how much time you have to put on a print. Every, or at least almost every, negative is workable and can be rendered into a good print, but getting there will take you more time on some than on others.

My suggestions would therefore be:

• Learn to read your negative on the ligth box: this will give you your first clues on how the neg may be approach
• Make contact proof sheets: they will also point towards the direction you might want to take
• Start with 8x10 paper for work prints
• Cut paper in 1/2 for test strips
• Always do the test strips on grade 2
• Use the test strip no only to determine exposure time but also which grade will, or might be necessary
• If grade is not obvious, do work print on grade 2
• Don't start working on the print immediately. Let the work print dry (even more important if fiber-based paper), look at it for a few days (there is an excellent thread on that on Photrio), try to determine beforehand which part of the photo may need dodging or burning
• When back in the darkoom to work on your print, again, use smaller pieces of paper (1/2 or 1/4 of 8x10) to test strip where you want to dodge or burn, in order to find the right exposure time for the tone you want. For this, have either a microwave or a hair-dryer nearby to check dry-down if working on fiber-based print.
• Put it all together on a first "final" print

Once you've figured out on 8x10 how to work the negative to a final print you like, it's a very simple matter to transpose it to 11 x 14 if that's what you want. In that case, though, it best if you learn f-stop printing because your f-stop calculations for dodging and burning will easily transpose from one size to the other.

With time, with that first grande 2 work print, you'll be able to evaluate more easily if you just need another grade or if split grade is necessary. Takes time, experience and experimenting for it to start becoming obvious.

If you intend to work on fiber-based paper, I suggest you do the work all the way to the work print on RC paper.

This past week I had a 4-hour darkroom session in which I managed to come out with workprints for 3 photos. For each photo, I have 2 RC work prints and 2 FB work prints. Each RC work print took just 3 sheets of paper : 1 split in half for the test strips (one with 1/3rd step increments, the other with 1/6th to fine tune the time) and the 2 work prints. The FB work prints also took 3 sheets (test strips where dryed with hair dryer). I've started looking at them and taking notes directly on the paper (hence the two work prints, one for looking, one for writing).

Two of these were easy negs to work with, so it didn't take me that long to get a good work print. That said, I see now that some burning will be challenging on one of them and that I will need to cut a special too or mask for it. This kind of stuff you can't figure out in just one session unless you have a lot of experience.

The third photo is a more difficult negative because too contrasty. The test print tells me two things : that the only way I can make it work will be split grade, and that I need to shorten my development time when using FP4+ in Rodinal 1+75.

 

[GregY]

It's about putting in the 10,000 hrs. There is no quick & dirty solution or magic answer.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Ralph is right. Get an RH Designs Zonemaster and calibrate it to your paper. If you learn how to interpret the readings you can skip test strips, though I still use one to verify just to save some paper. I also have a Darkroom Automations meter I use for the density readout it has. I use that at times to measure the density of the neg across the sky for example so I can dodge/ burn without any test strips.

 

[xkaes]

Do you really think that Picasso ever said "PERFECT" when he stopped painting any of his works?

 

[Don_ih]

Do you really think that Picasso ever said "PERFECT" when he stopped painting any of his works?

Picasso? Almost certainly.

 

[Rick A]

It's about putting in the 10,000 hrs. There is no quick & dirty solution or magic answer.

And at least 10,000 sheets of paper.

 

[GregY]

And at least 10,000 sheets of paper.

Yes, there's no way to side-step the learning curve

 

[bernard_L]

Do you really think that Picasso ever said "PERFECT" when he stopped painting any of his works?

Picasso? Almost certainly.

Je ne cherche pas je trouve (Picasso). Nicolas de Stael kept searching all his life, Mr Picasso, and that is why I prefer his paintings to your mass production.

 

[Pieter12]

You mention starting out with single-grade test strips and then moving on to split-grade printing. I would strongly suggest you start with a set of split-grade test strips. That entails making a first test strip with just the 00 filter to determine the best exposure time that just starts to show detail in the highlights. (Some start with the 5 filter for shadow detail, but my procedure is 00 first.) Don't throw it away, there will be useful information you can later use for burning and dodging. Then make a second test strip, first exposing the entire piece of paper with the 00 filter at the time you just found, followed by a series of strips with the 5 filter. One of the strips will be your final split-grade set of exposures, or pretty close. Also save that test strip, because you can use it for burning and dodging times for the final print. So far, you have used 2 pieces of paper, a 3rd for an initial split-grade print. With enough experience, it might not take more than a few more prints to arrive at a good final print. Also, as suggested above, you can make the test exposures using a smaller piece of paper--8x10 for an 11x14, most of the image area outside 8x10 will not affect the final 11x14 print much. I usually make my work prints 8x10, keep notes on times and burning and dodging, then make 11x14 prints by factoring the exposures by one stop (either opening the lens or doubling the time).

 

[cliveh]

Unfortunately, learning to print takes a long time. When I was an assistant photographer at the age of 17, the guy I worked for let me waste 100s of sheets of 10" X 8" paper, not even using test strips at that time. This was before I spent 3 years at a photographic college, but probably not for another 10 years or so after that did I feel I was producing prints exactly as I wanted them. Sorry, but there is no quick fix.

 

[MattKing]

As a counter-balance for some of the posts above, it is probably a good idea to give you some re-assuring good news.
Most of your progress will come relatively early - particularly if you don't have large gaps in time between sessions.
You will likely see much more rapid and obvious improvement at the beginning, and will most likely get to where the print quality is good after far fewer than the 10,000 print figure quoted above. Competent quality prints that are quite satisfying are not that far away.
The consistent attainment of exceptional quality, quickly and without extensive tests? That is what requires more extensive experience, plus at least some talent.

 

[eli griggs]

I haven't read all these replies yet, but grab a Bessler PM2L colour analyzer, and use it to meter the lightest and darkest areas and enlarge to average from those two readings solutions, or just pick the spot on the negative you've decided is most important and make a test strips for that area only.

Like a reverse "zone system" meter, the analyzer allows you place the initial test strips on the correct setting, even if you've already decided you want that area to be darker or lighter, before an actual exposure is made.

Despite the fact these are described as 'colour analyzers' you do not need a colour enlarger to make top shelf b&w enlargements.

The resulting photo will be repeatable months or years later, if you make good note about how you made the first 'good' one, including readings and final test image.

Cheers

 

[Brook Hill]

In photography there is no golden bullet which solves all the problems but there are many things that can be done to to make printing easier. As has been already mentioned getting a good negative is a big help and way to deaL large bright areas such as the sky is to use a graduated grey filter with the grey area over the sky. This will balance up and darken the sky instead of burning in when printing. It also retains detail which would otherwise be lost.
I have found staining developers like 510 Pyro, Pyrocat HD or PMK Pyro do seem to reduce the amount of burning and dodging, not dramatic but noticeable.
One way to deal with highlights without affecting the darker tones is to use the flashing technique either locally or maybe the whole print. This works well with skies behind bare tree branches or awkward shaped areas where you don't want to darken surrounding darker tones.
Alex Benjamin has mentioned above that useing smaller sheets of resin paper to determine the times for dodging and burning then use the same plan for larger prints and different papers including fibre. Using units of f stops makes transposing to different papers very easy. An f-stop enlarger timer makes life much easier but there are tables which can be used for converting seconds to f-stops including in Ralph's book.
One way to calculate the correct basic exposur time for a larger print is to use this simple formula;-
T2 = (L2 divided by L1) squared, times T1,
Where T2 is the new exposure time, T1 the original exposure time, L1 the length of the projected image on the easel and T2 the length of the enlarged projected image on the easel.
As Alex Benjamin said you just need a test strip to tweek the contrast and exposure time, Using smaller resin paper for work prints is quicker, easier and cheaper than going straight to fibre.

 

[Pieter12]

Using smaller resin paper for work prints is quicker, easier and cheaper than going straight to fibre.

Caveat: resin paper exhibits little to no dry-down effect, some fiber papers darken more when dry. So if you use RC paper for tests and fiber for the final, you will need to take that into account.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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

 

[xkaes]

my trash can is my best darkroom tool

While 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.