Controlling local contrast during exposure

[Compaq]

Hi!

I'm not sure how to control local contrast when making prints.

I am starting to produce very good negatives that are easy to print. However, I feel I'm stopping the work at the "work print", and not being able to take the prints to the next level. I'm currently at the "good album quality", you know, but I feel many prints lack "pop".

Adjusting global contrast is relatively easy by adjusting the magenta filter or by large dodge/burn operations. However, I'm not able to bring out detail and local contrast. Can anyone refer me to the literature, or perhaps post tips or things to do?

Here's a shot of a canon in Fredrikstad, Norway. I found the placement a bit funny, as it aimed straight into the tree I took this with my Olympus 35 SP loaded with Delta 100, shot at 50 and developed as if shot at 100 (yes, I forgot I pulled it, really ought to make notes!). I can't remember the exposure to the paper, but the print is developed in MG 1+9.
(the lines are from my sqeegee - which I won't every use again! Two rolls like this!)

Is it just a matter of carefully planning small dodge/burn operations? How would chemically treating the print with intensifiers do (I know very little of this)?

Any help is appreciated!
Anders

 

[HTF III]

correction

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Have you considered the zone system?

 

[cliveh]

Hi!

(the lines are from my sqeegee - which I won't every use again! Two rolls like this!)

Anders

I rest my case.

The local contrast could be controlled by split grade printing, for example dodge and burn using specific contrast values. However, I would try and keep things simple. Actually, looking at your print, I would guess this is printed from quite a thin neg and has little to do with print control and more to do with under exposure or under development.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's very hard to tell what to suggest from this scan - the overall image feels muddy, especially in the highlights, which would imply either that you're over-exposing the print as a whole, burning down the highlights too much, your negative has issues or your scanner settings are off, none of which can be eliminated from this scan. Also, the main subject is not sharply detailed the way I'd expect it to be between the Oly lens and the Delta 100 film. Is this a scan from a print or the negative?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There's always flashing the paper before exposing it.

 

[Chuck_P]

Having difficulty printing, seeming to not be able to get it the way you want it, is a clue that the problem may could well lie with exposure and development of the film rather than much to do with the printing stage.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I agree. Taking a little time to test your film, exposure and development will definitely pay off in the darkroom. Nothing worst than struggling with a bad neg just to get mediocre results.

 

[piu58]

They key to more pronounced structures in a print is to increase the contrast of the paper. This contrast is above the overall needings for the image in most cases. This is when burning and dodging comes in: You have to balance the overall contrast with the help of these techniques.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I recommend some reading on printing. The first one is The Negative by Ansel Adams. And one by an APUGer Ralph Lambrecht. The man is a genius.

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/Welcome.html

 

[Mark_S]

One technique for bringing out highlights within a shadow area is to use a bleach such as potassium ferricyanide. Make your print as usual (on FB paper), and wash completely after fixing. Mix up a very dilute solution of potassium ferricyanide, and paint it onto the area of the print where you want to pop out the highlights, and rinse the area almost immediately with running water. The bleach will take away some of the silver which leads to darkness and enhance the highlights. It works better at bringing out detail in highlights and doesn't do much in the shadow areas.

 

[piu58]

> Ralph Lambrecht. The man is a genius.
yes.

 

[HTF III]

I've read most of these posts, I think. And I have a question. Would flashing have been of any value in this instance? Is this photo the kind that can be done that way?

 

[phelger]

It is a contrasty subject, which can lead to underexposure (depending on metering technique) when photographing, which adds to the challenge of printing a contrasty negative.

Printing should always begin with an evaluation of the negative.

agree!

compaq, to me your photo looks underexposed, which could be explained by the light meter taking in more highlight than shadow zones. I've turned to incident light metering, setting film ISO half a stop under box speed and developing as per box recipe. that gives me shadow details and good contrast.
peter