Are my prints flat on multigrade paper?

[Robin Guymer]

I have a photographer mate (she worked in a studio lab in the '70s & '80s) who is extremely critical of my prints from my amateur darkroom efforts. She says they are flat and grey. But I think my prints are starting to be quite acceptable with good blacks and whites using split grade printing. I'm maybe thinking that her perception is based on using old grade paper that maybe showed no shadow detail and was more along the lines of punchy high contrast studio portraiture rather than the more outdorsy type photos that I take.

The differences
Her photography was studio based using Hasselblads and 50 or 100asa film developed in D76 and printed on single Grade paper.
My photography is from a collection of 35mm cameras using 100 or 400asa film developed in Xtol 1:1 and printed on Ilford Multigrade paper using split grade method of grade 0 and grade 5. My split grade method is to test strip at grade 0 to establish the whites and then do another test strip at grade 0 by xx seconds and then use that same strip to test at grade 5 for blacks, then use those times on the final print.

Do you think these differences in paper and developer would explain the criticism? I suppose I could post an image but then that is a scan which is not a true representation of the actual image on the paper.

 

[Anon Ymous]

People have different preferences you know. What might look nice for you might look dull, ugly etc for somebody else. It's certainly not the materials. Given reasonably good negatives, you should be able to produce nice prints, but you might not be able to please everyone.

 

[MattKing]

Does your "mate" still do darkroom printing? If so, it can be both fun and informative to both print the same negative.
My Darkroom Group did that as a fun exercise. I exposed a bunch of identical negatives and a few of us then took them home and did our own prints.
The differences between people's perceptions and preferences often result in really different results.
There has actually been at least two attempts to do this through site (either APUG as it then was or Photrio). You can find some of the results in the "Lets All Print One Negative" gallery, found here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/categories/lets-all-print-one-negative.15/

 

[pentaxuser]

As Matt has suggested, if not in so many words, why don't you try and do a print that meets her requirements, then scan both that print and your print of the same negative and show us them.

Yes I know that Photrio folks always seem reluctant to pass their opinions but I am sure that at least a few of us will summon up the courage to say what we think

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have a photographer mate (she worked in a studio lab in the '70s & '80s) who is extremely critical of my prints from my amateur darkroom efforts. She says they are flat and grey. But I think my prints are starting to be quite acceptable with good blacks and whites using split grade printing. I'm maybe thinking that her perception is based on using old grade paper that maybe showed no shadow detail and was more along the lines of punchy high contrast studio portraiture rather than the more outdorsy type photos that I take.

The differences
Her photography was studio based using Hasselblads and 50 or 100asa film developed in D76 and printed on single Grade paper.
My photography is from a collection of 35mm cameras using 100 or 400asa film developed in Xtol 1:1 and printed on Ilford Multigrade paper using split grade method of grade 0 and grade 5. My split grade method is to test strip at grade 0 to establish the whites and then do another test strip at grade 0 by xx seconds and then use that same strip to test at grade 5 for blacks, then use those times on the final print.

Do you think these differences in paper and developer would explain the criticism? I suppose I could post an image but then that is a scan which is not a true representation of the actual image on the paper.

Less difference between those materials than you'd think. The ideology of split grade tends to get in the way of making a good looking print with decent contrast (rather than a delusion of a 'correct' print) so she's probably got a point. I'd try & find the grade that nails the shadows up to the mids you want, then finesse the highlights with a softer grade or post-flash. Whole bunch of other approaches too, but better to start with a higher grade & work lower (or if needed, punch in shadows with G5 like Bob Carnie advocates). Softer, tonally rich approaches are good too, but they tend to demand a bigger negative for better tonality in my experience.

 

[eddie]

If you're using matte paper, and she's used to glossy, it may appear to her as if they're flat and gray. Matt's idea to have you both print the negative is a good one, if possible.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you're using matte paper, and she's used to glossy, it may appear to her as if they're flat and gray. Matt's idea to have you both print the negative is a good one, if possible.

Not if you know how to print on matt papers & if it was a factor, I suspect she'd have pointed it out.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It would help if we could see what you are talking about.

 

[Vaughn]

The attributes you give graded paper are due to the printer -- not the paper. Since you have your paper out for awhile (changing filters, etc), make sure your safelights are really safe and that you are not dulling your whites a little. Your methology sounds fine, but as stated seems to lack versitility...but that could just be due to brevity.

Perhaps print something she thinks is of her ideal contrast and tonal range...then make your own decision which you like better.

 

[eddie]

Not if you know how to print on matt papers & if it was a factor, I suspect she'd have pointed it out.

I don't know any quality matte paper with a Dmax which matches any quality glossy paper. The difference is even more significant if the glossy paper is ferrotyped. (personally, I use matte papers almost exclusively, though).

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't know any quality matte paper with a Dmax which matches any quality glossy paper. The difference is even more significant if the glossy paper is ferrotyped. (personally, I use matte papers almost exclusively, though).

No, obviously not in terms of Dmax, but in terms of tonal range. Big difference between a print that has a nicely dynamic tonal range & one that looks 'flat'.

 

[faberryman]

I have a photographer mate (she worked in a studio lab in the '70s & '80s) who is extremely critical of my prints from my amateur darkroom efforts. She says they are flat and grey. But I think my prints are starting to be quite acceptable with good blacks and whites using split grade printing. I'm maybe thinking that her perception is based on using old grade paper that maybe showed no shadow detail and was more along the lines of punchy high contrast studio portraiture rather than the more outdorsy type photos that I take.

Do you like your prints? Have you tried to print them the way she wants you too? What do you think about the results?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

A "good" print has black, white, and everything in between.
How are you developing the prints?

 

[canuhead]

a sample of your print would help, otherwise we're grasping at straws.

 

[Robin Guymer]

Picking out a few of my better prints off my darkroom wall (the rest do look very grey and flat), I have scanned them at 200dpi with no post processing. All are on glossy paper. Thanks for all the interest in this topic too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Picking out a few of my better prints off my darkroom wall (the rest do look very grey and flat), I have scanned them at 200dpi with no post processing. All are on glossy paper. Thanks for all the interest in this topic too.

View attachment 210367 View attachment 210368 View attachment 210369 View attachment 210370

I see no problems with the contrast of the prints. Some would say that the sky in Yosemite could be burned in more with a yellow filter or use bleach on the clouds, but the amount of pop in a print is a personal choice. The contrast is good in the rest of the prints, and it is a personal choice if one wants more contrast.

 

[awty]

They look like great prints, maybe shes the one that is flat and grey. "Flat and grey" are they technical terms?
I prefer to see the critique's prints so I can see if they know what they are talking about, not too hard to get picture to look good on a LCD screen.
People who know what they are doing can usual tell you where you went wrong and how to fix it

 

[Mick Fagan]

What you are doing is working quite well for you at the moment; keep doing it but keep looking to refine your technique.

Every now and again you may surprise yourself with a super duper print from a pretty good negative, analyse this carefully from the negative and the developing technique you used, also include how you developed the print.

Gradually you will become more refined and have a better knowledge of what is possible in the darkroom when or just before you expose the negative.

50 ASA film is usually more punchier (higher inherent contrast) than faster films, yet usually retains great detail; they are wonderful films to use. Studio lighting is a very controlled environment, usually very controlled. It is possible with correctly placed and powered lighting, to have a compression of the tones, which prints extremely well on single grade paper. That said, one usually still has to manipulate the print to get the best out of the negative, but you are usually looking pretty good with a tightly controlled negative.

Compression of tones, in this instance; means that from highlight to shadow the f/stop range is somewhere around 5 - 6 stops. I worked in a studio complex in Melbourne where we as much as possible compressed the scene being photographed to a 4 to 5 stop range of what we wished to print, you wouldn't wish to know how easy(ish) those negatives were to print. As it was product photography, this was a definite requirement. Black reflectors, diffuse lighting in places with spots of light placed where needed and so on. Complex in a way to shoot, but down the line it made stuff far easier to manage to get the image onto a printing press for either a magazine or newspaper ad.

Your dog shot is quite good, but if I was printing I probably would look at making the background maybe a 1/3 of a stop darker and with more contrast. I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, the dog could have maybe a 1/4 of a grade more contrast. It really is a suck it and see situation and as Matt says, every person prints the same negative differently.

I was on one of those print the same negative things all those years ago on this forum. Once all the prints were done, they were posted around the world for all to see; they were all different, some really different; great fun, but too expensive to do these days, especially for anything being posted out or into the USA from Australia.

Mick.

 

[pentaxuser]

Nothing wrong in my book with these prints, Robin. If it is these that she complains of as grey and flat then I suggest her perception of what grey and flat is, is not normal. You mention others that are grey and flat but we haven't seen them. However if it is these to which she refers and you agree with her then it is a question of improving those. It sounds as if some of the techniques suggested here are worth a try

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Are you printing for yourself or for her?

 

[rpavich]

Your prints look great..Id be happy with those for sure.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I agree with rpavich.

 

[Ian Grant]

There are different ways to interpret negatives when printing in terms of contrast and tonality. I tend towards lower contrast with my own work, I don't see any issues with your scanned images personally I wouldn't like to see them with more contrast.

It's your choice how to print and as others have said they look good.

Ian

 

[Robin Guymer]

Thanks Ian, Matt, Mick and others, you have all given me renewed hope. I will take on board all those great suggestions. Really appreciate the feedback. Film photography and darkroom printing is a hell of a great hobby and challenging to say the least. Cheers Robin.

 

[tedr1]

There are two ways to interpret your friends criticisms. One way is that she is drawing to your attention technical flaws in the prints due to lack of darkroom experience or skills. The other is that she is expressing a personal preference, she doesn't like the way you print, which is an opinion she is entitled to, but which is unhelpful. However they are your pictures and you get to decide how they look. It is not clear which "mode" your critic is in when she makes her evaluations.

In my opinion the example prints above show no obvious technical flaws. Perhaps it is the others she is referring to.