Are my prints flat on multigrade paper?

[warden]

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.

Your prints are technically competent, and not flat. (Also I happen to like them, especially the pooch!)

It would be interesting to see examples of your critic's prints too. I suspect this is simply a matter of taste, certainly nothing to be concerned about. Good work!

 

[jvo]

what is your mate's experience? is it current, years ago? even the "same" papers and chemicals have evolved not necessarily improved. have her use your neg and materials and show you! Not snark just a possibility that one of you will learn something - maybe photography related!

p.s. nice pictures... i'd be happy to have made them. if your like me, many of my pictures could be improved - given enough time and obsession! I just have fun!

 

[crypt47]

I have a photographer mate (she worked in a studio lab in the '70s & '80s)...
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.

If it's still matters, I would say the photos exposed well, but mid-tones separation (and placement) is not strong enough for my taste. Mid-tones are the most important in our 'flat/non-flat' perception. It reminds me the look of my own photos with kodak tmax 400 if i developer it wrong or in unsuitable chemicals. In case of landscape example I would use Ansel A. as a reference point.