Arista Film from Freestylephoto

Roger Cole · Sep 13, 2012

Also, what you are doing with two exposures, one each through your softest and most contrasty filter, is fine, but it makes it harder to judge what's going on compared to, say, "I printed it with a grade 2 filter and the highlights are blown out and the shadows empty" or whatever. There have been careful studies on this method that concluded the results are indistinguishable from a print made with a single filter to give the same overall contrast. (I don't have a link handy, if someone cares to look it up or dispute it, fine with me *g*) Some people like it and it works for them and that's fine. I see split printing like this as just a more complicated path to the same result, though of course I will burn in areas with different filters, or even use a piece of filter material as a dodging card/wand at times.

Jenni · Sep 13, 2012

Roger Cole said:
EDIT: Somehow I read 6 minutes but you said 6.5. That just adds to my suspicion the negatives are over developed and contrasty and you're getting muddy prints because you're compensating by using a too-soft filter to try to contain the highlights. For a printing test, try printing test prints to get the midtones looking right and let the highlights and shadows do what they may. The print may not look good but if you can get those midtones looking good that will tell you something about the problem. I'd still try going to a 5 minute developing time. That's a bit more than 20% less than your 6.5 and is also at the lower end of the manufacturer's spec.

It also occurred to me you said you were agitating every 30 seconds but this is 4x5. What method or kind of tank are you using for your film development?

The RC paper I have is glossy. Yes it prints better with these negatives.

I will be doing a series if test that Thomas has given me, I do believe I over developed the film. I think you and Thomas are saying the same things and I thank you for taking the time to educate me.

I am using dip tanks I think that's what you call them. They are square and you use metal frames to hang the negs in the chemestry. In total dakness, It's the system my friend used and it's his darkroom. He has not shot film in 10 years and is little help.

I will do the tests and report back.

Jenni · Sep 13, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Also, what you are doing with two exposures, one each through your softest and most contrasty filter, is fine, but it makes it harder to judge what's going on compared to, say, "I printed it with a grade 2 filter and the highlights are blown out and the shadows empty" or whatever. There have been careful studies on this method that concluded the results are indistinguishable from a print made with a single filter to give the same overall contrast. (I don't have a link handy, if someone cares to look it up or dispute it, fine with me *g*) Some people like it and it works for them and that's fine. I see split printing like this as just a more complicated path to the same result, though of course I will burn in areas with different filters, or even use a piece of filter material as a dodging card/wand at times.

I did tests and found I had to add the second exposure with the 0 filter it tone down the highlights. Without it they were paper white.

Roger Cole · Sep 13, 2012

Jenni said:
The RC paper I have is glossy. Yes it prints better with these negatives.

I will be doing a series if test that Thomas has given me, I do believe I over developed the film. I think you and Thomas are saying the same things and I thank you for taking the time to educate me.

I am using dip tanks I think that's what you call them. They are square and you use metal frames to hang the negs in the chemestry. In total dakness, It's the system my friend used and it's his darkroom. He has not shot film in 10 years and is little help.

I will do the tests and report back.

Humm. Well some papers just fit some negatives better than others.

Those are "deep tanks" used with hangars. That's what I used until I got my Jobo and I still have mine. They work fine and are pretty easy to use, even in the required darkness. Biggest limitations are the amount of chemistry required making one shot developers (like D76 1+1) impractical, or at least pretty darned expensive.

Roger Cole · Sep 14, 2012

Jenni said:
I did tests and found I had to add the second exposure with the 0 filter it tone down the highlights. Without it they were paper white.

Well, if you exposed with a #5, then some with a #0, you get the same result as if you'd just exposed the entire print with some intermediate filter, #3 or or 3.5 or whatever. Nothing wrong with doing it either way, really.

Rick A · Sep 14, 2012

After re-reading this thread, and digesting the info Jenni has offered up, I believe her problem is an under exposed and slightly over developed negative. This would stem from not factoring in bellows extension, plus shooting under tungsten(maybe) light. The film in question should be shot at half listed speed just for starters(we all agree), then added exposure is needed to allow for lighting conditions, and more exposure is needed for bellows extension when closer than infinity focus. The negative she is attempting to print will never give her the finished product she is after. It all comes down to getting proper exposure in the first place. Rule of thumb for B&W is "expose for shadow(over expose) and develope for hi-lites (under develope)".

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 14, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
This is correct. Unless you are burning and dodging different parts of the image during the soft and hard grade exposures, there is no real difference between split grade printing and using single contrast filters - except technically split grade printing effectively allows for continuously variable contrast grades rather than discrete half-grade intervals. This is a subtelty though.

Best for novice printers not to overcomplicate things.

Agree 100%, Michael.

And I also think Rick hit his head on the nail with his analysis of what might have happened to the negative, that it's underexposed and overdeveloped.

The test that I have described for Jenni to do is a simple film speed test, and a simple film developing test, to find a base line to jump from, getting negatives that in general print without much darkroom gymnastics, basically to get her a really solid starting point. There are no numbers involved, only subjectively judging negatives by contact printing them; something that isn't terribly complicated, but will help a lot to minimize frustration and waste in the darkroom.

Jenni · Sep 14, 2012

I agree, about the over processing, but disagree about the under exposure. I did not focus closer then infinity (I was very careful) I used a flash head (Normans) for the light source and a flash meter to get the correct exposure. I'm feeling under the weather at the moment so I won't be doing any testing today, but when I do I'll test some film and develop it to set a base line and work from there. By the way--- you guys are awesome! But where are the girls? I can't be the only one...LOL!

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 14, 2012

Jenni said:
I agree, about the over processing, but disagree about the under exposure. I did not focus closer then infinity (I was very careful) I used a flash head (Normans) for the light source and a flash meter to get the correct exposure. I'm feeling under the weather at the moment so I won't be doing any testing today, but when I do I'll test some film and develop it to set a base line and work from there. By the way--- you guys are awesome! But where are the girls? I can't be the only one...LOL!

Jenni,

I'm sure that for an EI of 200 your exposure was bang on. But the film probably isn't a true 200-speed film, and in order to get better (read 'more') shadow detail, exposing the film at a lower EI, say 100, would have gotten you shadows with more separation. Basically, it's a film dynamic rather than your skill at metering the light, and could be described as under-exposure.

Jenni · Sep 14, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Jenni,

I'm sure that for an EI of 200 your exposure was bang on. But the film probably isn't a true 200-speed film, and in order to get better (read 'more') shadow detail, exposing the film at a lower EI, say 100, would have gotten you shadows with more separation. Basically, it's a film dynamic rather than your skill at metering the light, and could be described as under-exposure.

OOooooooooooooooooooohhhhhh that makes sense My testing will be very revealing I think. Thanks for clearing that up.

Roger Cole · Sep 14, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
This is correct. Unless you are burning and dodging different parts of the image during the soft and hard grade exposures, there is no real difference between split grade printing and using single contrast filters - except technically split grade printing effectively allows for continuously variable contrast grades rather than discrete half-grade intervals. This is a subtelty though.

Best for novice printers not to overcomplicate things.

Well yes. And I have on rare occasions when, say, a grade 3 was a touch too soft and a 3.5 a touch too hard, given part of the exposure through a 3 and part through a 3.5. For me that's an easier way of getting that intermediate contrast than using the softest and hardest filters. But most of the time half grade steps are plenty fine enough.

Jenni · Sep 14, 2012

I agree about the filters. For now I'm going to concentrate on getting my negatives exposed the way I like them so I can work them in the darkroom the way I like them. I have to do one thing at a time and stay consistent so that I know when I change something what an impact it has. I am sure in the near future you will be reading a post about me asking for help on the filters and what does what I have about 1001 questions on the subject of photography.

I'm going on 22 years of being a student of photography and I'm proud of it. I love learning and making art. I hope I never "master" it.

Felinik · Sep 14, 2012

Gotta say I admire your spirit Jenni, I took the shortcut and decided to scan my negatives and print digitally (I started like six months ago only..). One day, when I got space at home and spend less time on work, I'll be the one asking all those questions... hehe!

Roger Cole · Sep 14, 2012

I've tried both and find it far, far easier to get a good black and white print optically in the darkroom. This isn't true for me with color (where it's about equally difficult but quicker digitally.)

Of course I've been printing optically off and on since the 70s. While I've also used computers since the early 80s most other computer experience doesn't help with imaging.

Jenni · Sep 14, 2012

Felinik said:
Gotta say I admire your spirit Jenni, I took the shortcut and decided to scan my negatives and print digitally (I started like six months ago only..). One day, when I got space at home and spend less time on work, I'll be the one asking all those questions... hehe!

Oh don't think I'm not tempted to do it that way. Just to have a nice print.... but the process is what makes it so much fun! I love the smell of fixer in the morning!

Jenni · Sep 14, 2012

Roger Cole said:
I've tried both and find it far, far easier to get a good black and white print optically in the darkroom. This isn't true for me with color (where it's about equally difficult but quicker digitally.)

Of course I've been printing optically off and on since the 70s. While I've also used computers since the early 80s most other computer experience doesn't help with imaging.

I want to be able to say as Thomas said "Look I Made It Without A Computer - #LIMIWAC" I'm sure you will agree watching the image magical appear in the developer tray is intoxicating even if it is all wrong. Well for me anyway. I'm guess I'm a little nutty like that.

Roger Cole · Sep 14, 2012

Nope, you sound just fine to me.

michaelbsc · Sep 14, 2012

Jenni said:
...I'm sure you will agree watching the image magical appear in the developer tray is intoxicating ...

That's been intoxicating to me since my parents got me a "darkroom kit" when I was eleven. Somehow it never stops being magic even once you know most of the secrets about how it works.

I put it down for a lot of years while I was raising a family, but it was just as awe inspiring years later when I came back.

It's really like being six years old opening birthday presents looking at the first wet print under the red light from a roll of film that you've been anticipating for a while.

MB

Felinik · Sep 14, 2012

Roger Cole said:
I've tried both and find it far, far easier to get a good black and white print optically in the darkroom.

I'm sure it is, though I am getting pretty good stuff out here with the MIS UT-14 inkset, but again, one day....

Rick A · Sep 14, 2012

Jenni said:
I want to be able to say as Thomas said "Look I Made It Without A Computer - #LIMIWAC" I'm sure you will agree watching the image magical appear in the developer tray is intoxicating even if it is all wrong. Well for me anyway. I'm guess I'm a little nutty like that.

Been at this for nearly 50 years, it's still magic watching a print materialize in the developer tray!!!!!!!!!!

Curt · Sep 14, 2012

Rick A said:
Been at this for nearly 50 years, it's still magic watching a print materialize in the developer tray!!!!!!!!!!

And so much better watching it materialize than watching a print roll off the printer.

scheimfluger_77 · Sep 15, 2012

Jenni said:
...I love the smell of fixer in the morning!

Look everyone, she's channeling Sarge!

Sarge is a H.S. friend of mine on the f/295 pinhole forum, he's the first one I heard use that phrase.

BTW, I lament the dearth of women in the forums too, I want to see more of you practicing this art form. Then again the forums may be so testosterone laden that they are keeping their distance.

Steve

michaelbsc · Sep 15, 2012

I think the mechanics of reading/posting fits the male brain better in some way that's not well understood.

All online stuff is mostly dominated by males unless it is a topic that is extremely female oriented.

So a gender specific topic will garner a gender based audiences, but a gender neutral topic will "usually" thin down to a males dominated group. I suspect exactly the opposite would occur if it were a face to face group like a community group of quilters.

madgardener · Sep 15, 2012

Jenni said:
I want to be able to say as Thomas said "Look I Made It Without A Computer - #LIMIWAC" I'm sure you will agree watching the image magical appear in the developer tray is intoxicating even if it is all wrong. Well for me anyway. I'm guess I'm a little nutty like that.

I remember the first time I saw a picture develop in the tray in my photo 1 class. It did seem almost magical. Just because we know how something works, doesn't mean its not magical or a miracle.

Roger Cole · Sep 15, 2012

scheimfluger_77 said:
Look everyone, she's channeling Sarge!

Sarge is a H.S. friend of mine on the f/295 pinhole forum, he's the first one I heard use that phrase.

BTW, I lament the dearth of women in the forums too, I want to see more of you practicing this art form. Then again the forums may be so testosterone laden that they are keeping their distance.

Steve

Oddly enough, there seems to be a larger proportion of women over at the large format forum, and I also note that Jenni is shooting 4x5.

michaelbsc said:
I think the mechanics of reading/posting fits the male brain better in some way that's not well understood.

All online stuff is mostly dominated by males unless it is a topic that is extremely female oriented.

So a gender specific topic will garner a gender based audiences, but a gender neutral topic will "usually" thin down to a males dominated group. I suspect exactly the opposite would occur if it were a face to face group like a community group of quilters.

Humm...dunno about that. The pilot forum I frequent most often has a lot of very active women posters. Considering the overwhelmingly large male demographic among private pilots it seems the women are more likely rather than less to post. I suspect the same thing in (analog - doubt this holds true in digital) photography.

Arista Film from Freestylephoto

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency