Grading whites and hightlights, problem.

[Helinophoto]

Hi

I have an issue, trying to make a print of a photo I took last summer.

I tried to use splitgrade on it (00 and 5) on Adox MCP 312 RC and an old LPD Ethol mix from last year (it's still very active and I get true blacks still), but I cannot seem to get the sky right.

Here is a example, where I scanned the negative and tweaked it to my liking.

Palace of Westminster, Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr

Here, I simply set the black and white-points and created a slightly up-swept curve from the bottom 1/3, to get the buildings a tad brighter and overall contrast lower), the greys in the sky are somewhat similar to the grays in the top of the buildings.

I am looking for a pretty high-toned result like this, but with defined blacks, for example in the building details and below the bridge. I also plan to burn the water a tad darker than in this example.

However, last night, when mucking about with the Ilford 00 filter, making the first test strip. It seemed like everything just went to dull greys, even the buildings, as well as the water. Overall the test-strip didn't look good at all. I realized that my timings were off, so I tried again with less time, which gave a better test-strip, but still, the skies didn't show any clouds in any of the indicated times, even if the sky-tone itself seemed correct.

The negative is pretty thick, most likely overexposed by 1-1.5 stops, it's plus-x @ 100, developed in HC-110 B. Most other shots on that roll does look normal as a whole, but I knew this particular shot would be a tad overexposed, due to the sun coming out briefly and 1/1000s shutter-speed limit on my M6.

Still, my enlarger has no problem shining trough the negative and it is very easy to use the grain focus, printing times were also very short last night, I think I had my lens wide open (exposure for the highlights with the 00-filter was 5 seconds and the 5 filter was 8 seconds for a 20*30cm print, I may stop it down to get more control over the process).

Question: How can I get control over the subtle variances in the sky here, which filters would do that, while still leave most buildings quite bright? (is that even possible with out burning and dodging?).

I can see if I can scan my horrible results from the darkroom when I get home tonight, if that helps.

 

[David Lyga]

To me, it seems that you have truncated the tonal values, thus lowered highlight separation, because of overexposure. (Everything is congested too high on the characteristic curve.)

This is a decided disadvantage with fully exposing, thus guaranteeing that shadow details are fully captured. It is a bit of a trade-off, in that, due to the lower tonal range on a reflectance medium, a print, the full panoply of values that the transparency, the negative, is capable of and fully delineating, cannot be transferred without bringing the range into a more compact representation. - David Lyga

 

[Helinophoto]

Could it be an idea to try my other filters, like 0, 1, 1.5, 2 etc... on the sky? (increase contrast in the sky alone).

The variances in tones in the sky is very subtle and it may indeed be as you say, that the dense negative, combined with the ability of the paper to capture tones, prevents me from getting any details there. (the negative isn't bulletproof, but I don't have a densiometer, so I cannot give you any figures)

I am thinking that the 00 filter just pulls every high-tone down, not leaving any whites left at all and very quickly so. (I may be wrong)
I tried to google various split-grade videos and articles last night, but I really could not find any good examples on how to grade the white and light tones in a print like this, all examples were "good for demonstration", off-course ^^

I have pondered if a higher grade filter can leave more "real white" behind and darken the subtle grays, like a 1 - 2 filter, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

 

[bvy]

Just thinking out loud here... If you start with your grade 5 exposure to lay your blacks down, then it seems like you can dodge the sky and water out pretty easily. From there work on the sky and water separately.

Have you done some tests strips with the other filters on the sky (water) alone -- at different exposures -- to see if you can even get the sky that you want? I don't see any advantage to split grading the sky. You could also experiment with localized preflashing to give a "push" to regions where you want more definition.

 

[MattKing]

Try burning in the sky with a higher contrast filter.

 

[Huub]

I would suggest concentrating on the sky, using a higher grade filter, until you find the contrast and tone you want there. Start with grade 2 and see what results you get and correct to higher or lower if necessary. Once the sky is perfect, use dodging and burning for the other parts of the picture.

Years ago I made some dodging tools of an old grade 5 filter. Using these i can increase local contrast, more or less maintaining the darker tones, while brightening the lighter ones in the area where you use them. When i need to apply this technique to larger ereas, i use a complete grade 5 filter, sometimes bending it a bit or keeping it at an angle above the picture.

Darker tones can be further increased by carefully burning in locally with a grade 5 filter.

 

[David Lyga]

Now I am looking at this anew and I see a marvelous high-key effect. This 'black deficiency' does not demean the artistic effect, it simply fosters a different perspective that, today, I happen to have. Art is not science. - David Lyga

 

[Helinophoto]

Hey

Thank you all for encouraging words.
I will set up my things tomorrow and have another crack at this (I live in a rather small apartment, so it's 30 minutes to set everything up properly).

I will get back to you with my experience, will indeed try filters 0.5 - 1 - 1.5 etc and make some test-strips and see what they can do for me

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Take a look at this video.

 

[Helinophoto]

I have checked out both of his videos on splt-grade printing, and used 00 and 5 filers to no avail, the sky comes out all gray. I may have to take another look, since I may have missed something, great teachings ^^

 

[Helinophoto]

Ok, so I did two attempts to recreate the above.
These are printed at 1,5 grade (both of them), the darker one 2/3 stop darker than the brighter one.

The brigther one, has all the details under the bridge, while the darker one has details on the brightest girders below the bridge, fading into black.

The white point represent the paper as seen to the eye, if I had set it to white to match the monitor-white, it would not represent what the eye see when you look at the print, as it would be too white.

This is the best I could do, regarding the sky, even though I see that the scans of these prints somehow yields more detail actually visible to the eye (I have tried to reduce the contrast in the sky on these, but they still show more than you actually see with the eye).

Both work, but I like the brighest one the best, I find the lower contrast on the buildings work best to give the photo a nice feel (the parliament buildings are yellowish)

The darkening on the left side is the scanner, these are 24,0cm * 30,5cm prints on Adox MCP 312 RC paper.

I prefer the brighter print.

Brighter

Darker

 

[Frank53]

I would take the upper one and burn in the sky with grade 0.
When the sky is grey like this, the foreground often becomes too dark when printing on one grade only. I always measure (split grade controller) only the foreground and than burn in the sky at 0.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Helinophoto]

Thank you.

Well, I tried 0, but the clouds would not come out at all then (just faded to grey), at 1.5 grade filter, the sky came out, but that does indeed influence the rest of the shot.

The water is burned in at +2, very easy due to the clear line.

 

[Frank53]

And if you burn in a lot longer at 0?
Regards,
Frank

 

[Helinophoto]

I tried a handful of test-strips at 0, and it simply showed that the sky went from white to dark grey, depending on time, no details, just a whole block of the same tones.

I think the reason is that the tones in the sky are so close that a 0 grade-filter just push everything down, the light contrast filter seem to be able to separate them, but one has to be careful as well, the darker shot shown, is on the verge of becoming grainy in the sky area.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Try burning in the sky with a higher contrast filter.

+1

 

[pentaxuser]

Isn't the problem that with burning in the sky with a higher filter, the buildings sticking into the sky can end up with a noticeable lighter halo around them unless the burning tool is very precisely contoured and used? This looks to be a difficult picture in which to accurately burn in the sky to the extent that the OP wants without some noticeable halo effect on the sky or risking the edge of the buildings going a lot darker?

pentaxuser

 

[bvy]

I'm usually happy if I have any detail in such a sky. And I see outlines of clouds here which is good. For more contrast, you could perhaps experiment with some localized preflashing on the darker side of the cloud edges.

 

[Helinophoto]

Isn't the problem that with burning in the sky with a higher filter, the buildings sticking into the sky can end up with a noticeable lighter halo around them unless the burning tool is very precisely contoured and used? This looks to be a difficult picture in which to accurately burn in the sky to the extent that the OP wants without some noticeable halo effect on the sky or risking the edge of the buildings going a lot darker?
pentaxuser

Yes, this was my conclusion as well, so split-grade was my initial plan. The darkest greys in the sky, is almost the same tone as the lightest part of the buildings.
Ended on a whole exposure for 1.5 grade (with a +2 stop burn on the water) and I ended up with something very close to what I set out to do.

The negative is probably a little difficult, since it is overexposed (sun kept coming in and out, behind and to my left shoulder so it was hard to measure for snaps on my holiday).

I'm usually happy if I have any detail in such a sky. And I see outlines of clouds here which is good. For more contrast, you could perhaps experiment with some localized preflashing on the darker side of the cloud edges.

Hehe yea, I just find that a little difficult, since it fades to dull gray so fast, not sure how good I would manage to preflash (I only have my enlarger and it means taking out the negative etc and test flashing at various apertures at 1 second, which will be spotty).
Running out of paper, I settled on the lighter edition, it was a good learning-process with the various filter-effects =)

 

[Bob Carnie]

Start at around a grade 3 or 4 make the sky pop, and flash in 0 for tone.

this will define a good solid contrast and the O flash will create the illusion you require.

Sometimes its ok to start opposite from what the Split Graders are calling for.

 

[Helinophoto]

Thanks for the tip.

I did try a 2.5 filter, but it made the buildings too dark, once the sky had good contrast.
The scene is lit by the sun, behind my left shoulder. The clouds were very shifting (some spread showers here and there, sometimes opening up for 2-3 minutes of sun etc), so the sky behind the buildings are lit very diffusely.
Actually, I didn't even know some structure in the sky had registered at all before I scanned the negative, even while shooting, the sky was pretty diffused and uniform to the eye, what you see, is clouds on clouds, the darker grey is not blue sky. ^^

 

[pentaxuser]

I have learnt a lot from this thread but can I ask for some clarification from Bob Carnie. Bob are you suggesting that you expose only the sky area at grade 3 or 4 so the rest of the scene is dodged? What does flash in 0 for tone consist of and is this the whole area of the print and for how much time? I take it that 0 is a reference to a grade 0 filter, the time of which you'd need to experiment by a strip test or is does the reference to flash mean something else altogether?

As you can see I am a little confused about what precisely needs to be done to fulfil your suggestion in post 20

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am suggesting to make a higher contrast print that will separate the clouds then flash in tone. I work both ways all the time.. so far the OP has had no luck , I am suggesting to give it a completely different method

I have made many shows with Grade 5 and flash for tone, just need to experiment a bit.

First thing I did when learning how to print was to take different types of negatives and print them on all grades and try to make a good image from each . This taught me a lot about
the magic of printing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

First thing I did when learning how to print was to take different types of negatives and print them on all grades and try to make a good image from each. This taught me a lot about the magic of printing.

Very interesting. I'll try this next time I'm in the dark. I've been out of it for a while due to school, but had a stride of energy to get going again.
Reading about OP's problems with the highlights reminded me of my own struggles as I was printing yesterday, where the fine nuances in highlights can be difficult.
When I split grade print, I work in reverse, where I lay the main highlights down with a low grade filter first, like a 0 or a 1.5 or the like, depending on the negative, and then I fill in with a 4, 4.5 or 5, again depending on the negative, to get the shadow densities along with some highlight pop.

I was also thinking that sometimes we fool ourselves a little bit when we first scan negatives and then print them in the darkroom, because the negatives are interpreted by two different mediums that read the film curve differently. The scanner is essentially a linear tool, where all tones from black to white are on a straight line, compared to a paper that has a curve that was designed to match a negative of some average qualities, and the results are sometimes starkly different for that reason. So, I think of film scanning as a double edged sword, where it can help in terms of making sure the film is OK, that the content is good, that things are sharp where they need to, and so on, but at the same time we can get slightly fooled by the results when we go into the darkroom to make prints and our expectations can get skewed.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I much prefer the original image in the first post. The minimalist detail in the river and sky don't distract from the beautiful textural detail of the architectural elements. The overall bright appearance of the first image is wonderful, IMHO. The only thing I might do is crop the first image square eliminating the top of the sky, which is very unusual for me because I nearly always prefer longer formats.