Dodging a high contrast negative on 3.5x5 print

[ericdan]

I took the last photo of my friend and his wife before she gave birth. Wanted to make a small print for them but have trouble getting it right.
The negative is unfortunately very dense.
I tried several different things. The following gave me the attached results but I just can’t dodge them cleanly. His shoulder and her arm always have some dark spots.

f/2.8 35s exposure
Dodge the pavement and them (with small cut out) 9 sec

no filter on Forte Bromoforte 9x12cm grade 2 paper. I don’t have other grades of this paper. I could try on fomabrom variant with filters.

Any ideas would be highly appreciated.
Thanks.

 

[ic-racer]

Reducer.
Or print it lighter and burn the background and foreground.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Get a piece of frosted mylar. Tape it to the negative on a light table. With a soft pencil, lightly...really lightly... shade in the area that you want to dodge. I smooth out the shading with an artists smudging stick. Place in your enlarger and make a test strip. You will probably have to adjust the opacity of pencil shading. I did this for years and if done correctly, it works really well.

 

[MattKing]

Ignore the background.
Make the best print you can of the couple.
That is where the "glow" is.

 

[ericdan]

That is an awesome idea. Wouldn’t have thought of that. And the frosted Mylar just goes on the shiny side right on top? I just expose thru that?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That is an awesome idea. Wouldn’t have thought of that. And the frosted Mylar just goes on the shiny side right on top? I just expose thru that?

Yes, it goes directly on top of the negative, in the negative tray. You expose right through it... think of it as a "built in" dodge.

 

[pentaxuser]

f/2.8 35s exposure

Thanks.

View attachment 257458
View attachment 257459
View attachment 257460

Not at all relevant to your question but was this really 35 secs at f2.8? This seems an incredibly long exposure for such a big aperture?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[ericdan]

Not at all relevant to your question but was this really 35 secs at f2.8? This seems an incredibly long exposure for such a big aperture?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yes, look at the dense negative.
35 seconds is so without a filter since it’s graded paper.
The print is really small. 9x12 centimeters not inches! Around 3.5x5 inches.

This paper is really old. It may have lost speed over the years. That doesn’t change the contrast problem. I’ve tried making the print on new fomabrom variant with filters and had no luck either.
Trying Andrew’s Mylar idea next.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, ericdan. Yes the negative does look quite dense but at least I have learned how density translates into a massive increase in exposure

pentaxuser

 

[ericdan]

OK. So after watching the naked Photographer’s video on split grade printing I got the attached result, which I’m happy with.
I really like his technique. Find highlights time with grade 00 then do a test strip with 5 on top of the entire print exposed to the 00 filter.

This was made with fomabrom variant 111 5x7 paper cut in half. Quick selenium toning, followed by sepia and very light gold.