Basic help with super dense contrasty negative please.

[MartinP]

For those of you suggesting split contrast printing.
How reliable and stable is the situation where you have to touch the enlarger head to: open the filter drawer, change filters and close the filter drawer?
I would be afraid that if I touch the enlarger head to do that, the 2nd exposure would be "slightly" out of alignment with the first.
Or am I just being a pessimist.

If your enlarger is not solid and/or does not have locks on the head and focus then find yourself one that does! In a less ideal world, under lens multigrade filters are frowned at by some, but are much easier to change without moving anything. It is probably also possible to make sure the filter-drawer doesn't jump about due to roughness or some sort of stiff spring lock etc. You really want it operating completely smoothly. Just a point on the smaller-print method of making a mask - paint the back of it black, else you can sometimes get some reflected glare from the 'sky' bouncing back under the mask with a long burning-in exposure (effectively a 'flash' of the skyline which might sometimes be noticeable).

 

[rpavich]

Well, thanks everyone. I gave it my best shot for now. I ended up printing with a grade 3 for 27 seconds to get the buildings where they needed to be and then changed to a 00 filter and burned the sky in using a cut out mask of the buildings for another 25 seconds.
I asked my friend (the owner of this negative) just how low the light level was when he took this and he said that the buildings were in very deep shadow, the scene was backlit as the sun was going down behind the buildings. That's probably part of the problem, there's almost no contrast in the buildings themselves but there's TONS from that to the sky. it's much easier to print when you leave the buildings as a silhouette...it almost prints itself!
(in the picture, what looks like a blown highlight is just a reflection of my kitchen light)

 

[Michael Wesik]

For those of you suggesting split contrast printing.
How reliable and stable is the situation where you have to touch the enlarger head to: open the filter drawer, change filters and close the filter drawer?
I would be afraid that if I touch the enlarger head to do that, the 2nd exposure would be "slightly" out of alignment with the first.
Or am I just being a pessimist.

I've never had an issue with this. If there was a problem then you'd theoretically have to either refocus or adjust the paper placement every time you change filters, period. So you should already know.

 

[Michael Wesik]

View attachment 166026 Well, thanks everyone. I gave it my best shot for now. I ended up printing with a grade 3 for 27 seconds to get the buildings where they needed to be and then changed to a 00 filter and burned the sky in using a cut out mask of the buildings for another 25 seconds.
I asked my friend (the owner of this negative) just how low the light level was when he took this and he said that the buildings were in very deep shadow, the scene was backlit as the sun was going down behind the buildings. That's probably part of the problem, there's almost no contrast in the buildings themselves but there's TONS from that to the sky. it's much easier to print when you leave the buildings as a silhouette...it almost prints itself!
(in the picture, what looks like a blown highlight is just a reflection of my kitchen light)

Nice! You could also try doing the same thing but use a higher contrast filter like Grade 4 or 5 and see how you like it.

 

[ac12]

Thanks guys. I asked because the door to the filter drawer of my Durst M600 is NOT smooth nor light to lift. I have to hold the head to raise the door, and similar to close the door. Maybe some tinkering is called for to try to smoothen out the edge of the door and the mating tracks in the head.

 

[rpavich]

Nice! You could also try doing the same thing but use a higher contrast filter like Grade 4 or 5 and see how you like it.

I think I'm going to keep this negative for a few days and keep trying. It's certainly more instructive than the easy ones

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Keep in mind that pre-flashing is similar in effect to burning with a lower-contrast filter; it gives more exposure while reducing the separation between the highest values. More pre-flash = less separation in the very highest values. Using the two techniques together may make your base exposure for the buildings easier.

I've often used a cut-out outline mask like Matt describes above. The trick is to find the compromise between coverage and blur so that there are not noticeable halos around the building tops.

David's suggestions are super.

Best,

Doremus

 

[markbarendt]

So, would you say that this is a true statement; if the negative has the information then it can be brought out with enough effort. ?

yes

 

[bvy]

For those of you suggesting split contrast printing.
How reliable and stable is the situation where you have to touch the enlarger head to: open the filter drawer, change filters and close the filter drawer?
I would be afraid that if I touch the enlarger head to do that, the 2nd exposure would be "slightly" out of alignment with the first.
Or am I just being a pessimist.

Dichroic head. I only use two filtrations (00 and 4.5) and they're marked for easy changing. The knobs move smoothly, so no registration issues (although I don't usually print larger than 11x14).

 

[bvy]

On a related note, is anyone here doing any "hard edge" dodging and burning? If so, how do you achieve a smooth transition along a narrow border without haloing?

 

[darkroommike]

Used to make contrast masks for Cibachrome printing, it can be done even with 35mm negatives. And if you were really "gung ho" you could make an enlarged positive and then a negative to print. These sort of negatives are excellent "learning experiences" but in real life I'd probably just sc*n the dang thing and make a d*gital print.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

For those of you suggesting split contrast printing.
How reliable and stable is the situation where you have to touch the enlarger head to: open the filter drawer, change filters and close the filter drawer?
I would be afraid that if I touch the enlarger head to do that, the 2nd exposure would be "slightly" out of alignment with the first.
Or am I just being a pessimist.

With a cold head lamp it is a problem because I lay the filter right atop the neg carrier, which involves raising the head. I tape the neg carrier in place, or there is no guarantee. With a condenser and a drawer, just don't bump anything, should be no problem.

 

[M Carter]

For those of you suggesting split contrast printing.
How reliable and stable is the situation where you have to touch the enlarger head to: open the filter drawer, change filters and close the filter drawer?
I would be afraid that if I touch the enlarger head to do that, the 2nd exposure would be "slightly" out of alignment with the first.
Or am I just being a pessimist.

Before I got my 4x5 enlarger, this worried me. I rigged up some plywood and hardware and made a bracket that fastened the top of my enlarger column to the ceiling. Had no trouble with split printing and the like. It doesn't need to be something that would dock a battleship, the vibrations up there are more "sympathetic" and easy to quell. But it made the enlarger (Beseler 67) stable as hell.

I also found 52mm camera filters that matched my #00 and #5 filters I can use those under the lens with no degradation - they just drop into the red0filter holder. (Though over the last few years I do mostly lith printing so no filters needed...)

 

[removed account4]

i use polymax filters that go under the lens. been using them to split filter for 15-20 years, never had an issue.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
Have you tried scanning the negative? I would multi-scan the negative using Silverfast software. It will take time because of the density but I think you'll have a better chance of winding up with a good print. It's also the least evasive to your negative and the software will also reduce the grain that you will definitely have because of over exposure.
Years back we'd use Kodak Farmer's reducer, but there are always risks and you don't want to chance ruining a one of a kind negative.
Rick

 

[rpavich]

Hi,
Have you tried scanning the negative? I would multi-scan the negative using Silverfast software. It will take time because of the density but I think you'll have a better chance of winding up with a good print. It's also the least evasive to your negative and the software will also reduce the grain that you will definitely have because of over exposure.
Years back we'd use Kodak Farmer's reducer, but there are always risks and you don't want to chance ruining a one of a kind negative.
Rick

I haven't because it's not my negative otherwise I would have. This was just an exercise to practice on a negative because the owner had a hard time with it.