Fantastic!-Negatives Came Out Great! Oh Hell - Prints Are Sh_ _ !

[DF]

You can just tell when you shot a GREAT roll by the way the negs look while you're inserting them into the sleeves - or can you? You can't wait to get under that enlarger and see those stupendous 8X10's.
Upon further examination.....
Yeh, photography has it's ups & downs....

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It happens. We have an image of what we think it looks like in our minds, only to have the test print say otherwise. Sometimes we set our expectations too high.

 

[Leigh B]

If your negatives look good, with clean shadows and reasonably dense highlights...
then perhaps an issue exists with your printing regimen.

I've seen recommendations that you should be able to read newsprint through the dense areas.

The usual suspect is using a paper grade that's too hard or soft.
This results in a tone range that doesn't work.

Or you might not be developing long enough (2 minutes recommended).

Perhaps if you could scan some negs and prints and post them...

- Leigh

 

[ic-racer]

Good negatives have six or seven-tenths the contrast of the original scene. So, the best negatives might look 'dull.' A negative with a lot of contrast that might even look like a reverse transparency, might have too much contrast to print well.

 

[Vaughn]

Or one goes thru some old negatives...25, 35 years old, and asks oneself, "Why have I never printed this? Don't remember taking it, but I reconize the place and the data is in my hand-writing on the negative sleeve. This is a great image! Did I lend my camera to someone?"

I was often disappointed with my negative after making the first work-print (16x20 from 4x5 negs). The scene would not sing to me. But one does not give up at that stage...I found that within a print or two, the image would start to come alive as I fine-tuned the exposure, contrast, and burning schedule (and maybe a little dodging, but rare)...reacquainting myself to what I remember seeing.

This is a 16x20 print -- a canyon in Death Valley. Those negatives back then (4x5, a lot of TMax100 and misc older films before that) did tend to be 'flat', and this one like most of them was printed on grade 3 Ilford Gallarie Glossy (or grade 3 Portriga Rapid III if I wanted a warm tone.) I liked aiming for this combination...since I was using graded paper, I could reduce the contrast some if I needed to by using Selectol-Soft.

 

[paul ron]

leave it alone for a month or two n try again.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You can just tell when you shot a GREAT roll by the way the negs look while you're inserting them into the sleeves - or can you? You can't wait to get under that enlarger and see those stupendous 8X10's.
Upon further examination.....
Yeh, photography has it's ups & downs....

Not necessarily. A good negative is one that prints well. You have to learn how to judge negatives, how to recognize a negative that will print well. It will look 'flatter' (less contrasty) than a good print.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Good negatives have six or seven-tenths the contrast of the original scene. So, the best negatives might look 'dull.' A negative with a lot of contrast that might even look like a reverse transparency, might have too much contrast to print well.

Yes, this take a while to learn.

 

[KenS]

[QUOTE="(snip}
Yeh, photography has it's ups & downs....[/QUOTE]

Might I suggest that you scan the negative, make some minor adjustments (as you think might in order to 'improve' the required density/contrast range.... print out (as a negative) onto Pictorico and print onto paper using one of the non-silver processes. You might 'surprise' yourself.

Ken

 

[DF]

These were 4 frames of "chance-shots" I took from an elevated train station here in Chicago before I got kicked out for setting down a tripod which is a violation at all EL stations, so I learned. The heavy rainfall was pounding the street at this busy intersection of Roosevelt & Wabash with headlights/rearlights leaving luminous short trails as reflections down below with my 135 opened all the way at 2&3 seconds and all the other reflections from wet ground as well. Then security guard. Bye-bye.
Certain that these few frames wouldn't make any difference, and the rest of the roll went on to bigger & better things, the negs look as If they'd produce a good print. But no - what I didn't expect - Light areas washed out dark areas too dense.

 

[DF]

On a different note, some negs I didn't bother to print 5 years ago because they didn't look worth it recently show up. "What the he_ _" I think. Vwalla - very nice!

 

[Luckless]

Sounds like some negatives that are worth coming back to and trying to print in a few different ways. Maybe some more aggressive or detailed post work can get you a result you're happy with.

Might also have something worth considering taking over to Dpug to play with if you're not feeling like you're getting anywhere with old school traditional methods. (Some find such things helpful to sift through what they can find on the negative and get a better idea of how they want to tackle something in the darkroom.)

 

[John Bragg]

Making a contact sheet is a good idea for some. I have learned to assess negatives without, but it takes a lot of practice. It is a lot easier to coax a good print from a well exposed and not too dense slightly flat neg than one that is over developed and bullet proof. Develop to print on a grade 2.5 or 3 and you have some waggle room. I too have experienced the feeling of looking at someone else's work when looking back 30 years.

 

[Hatchetman]

35mm always look in focus to the naked eye. under the enlarger, not so much.

 

[mshchem]

Make nice 5x7s and split contrast printing.

 

[DF]

I am at fault for not making contact sheets - but they rarely help me unless the entire roll/sheet are similar in exposure, time of day, or subject matter.
I could've made a mini contact "strip" with just those 4 frames.

 

[Nige]

Upon further examination.....
Yeh, photography has it's ups & downs....

put those ones away for a year or two, they might redeem themselves at a later viewing!

 

[removed account4]

sometimes negatives need to be interpreted rather than printed.
when i say interpreted, i mean not printed exactly as you remember the scene
but using all your printing skills to extract something out of the negative.
putting your film away for a while sometimes will remove your memory of the scene
from the excitement of seeing the film come out of your processing tank and you will
see the negative with "fresher" eyes.. i can't say how many exposures i passed over
when i originally processed and printed the images and years later i looked at the film
enlarged/printed those images with fresheyes and understood why i exposed the frame to begin with.

have fun!
john

 

[DF]

Without making excuses, my X-700's really do need an overhaul.
Also, I'm too impatient to make contact sheets.

 

[Rick A]

AA taught us many years ago, one single word that helps us make great negatives, The word, "previsualization". You need to see the scene as a final print, and know what it takes to make it happen. Something I found much easier to do when I stopped firing off rolls of 135 snapshots and moved to 120. Then found it even easier when I moved to large format. Stop snapping and start looking. You'll be amazed at how many more printable negatives you will have.