Having To Go Back-To-Basics or Learn Properly or Photography Rut ?

Everything up until past few months has been great since starting B&W 4 years ago - shooting/printing/developing.
'Haven't changed anything concerning exposure/development/"personal style"/etc.
Prints are terrible - way too contrasty - almost no grey, dark areas too dark/dense, light areas too light, or washed out.
'Last explanation is over-exposed film - negatives too dense, but, I've always was able to get a good print out of them reguardles.
I admit my technical understanding is minimal, photography I enjoy but perhaps it's time to learn it "right"?

From my experience, it never hurts to go 'back to the basics'. I've dabbled in these arts for about 60 years, sort of in and out along the way. When I got back into doing B&W work about ten years back sfter a long time away, it was almost like starting over from scratch. That forced me to go back to the basics and analyze my methods a bit. I now feel I have been doing the best work I've ever done, at least in the technology aspect of it.

Even conducting some tests for personal exposure index using your chosen film and chemistry can help optimize your work flow and results.

My 1.3 (after tax) cents,

Funny, at first I had a heck of a time dialing in my developing to where I wanted it, but getting prints has been a breeze. So I'm not sure what's up. I started right out w/ a decent neg on my first print, made a test strip, saw what I liked from that, and printed it exactly like the strip. I mean, it HAS to match, right?

I guess you'll just have to go through the protocol. Make sure your developer and fixer are fresh, your paper isn't fogged, the safelight is actually safe, the enlarger isn't leaking light like crazy, and your developing temps are close enough. I even bought some filters for my enlarger to fine tune things, but they haven't been necessary. Once I select the correct exposure from the test strip, the print matches that and all is good. I'm wondering if it isn't a paper issue if everything I mentioned checks out? Just switching to a different paper can make a huge difference. When I went from good RC paper to expensive fiber paper, wow. The blacks just took off, and the whites are actually white. Nothing else changed but the paper, and it was a big difference. I always use a hair dryer on the test strip too so that I don't have to deal with dry down values changing. Best to inspect it under a good, strong light.

Having said all that, if you don't have a really good neg to begin with, it just makes things a lot more difficult. So use your best neg and see what comes of it. I don't like to spend a lot of time on a print, so the test strip is really important. Having a good neg and excellent paper means things go much faster and easier. If you don't use a good neg, you'll have to go w/ a test strip and filters. No big deal.

hi DF

it doesn't take much time to figure thigns out, and if your negatives are that contrasty i'd do a few tests.
it doesn't take a whole roll of film, but if you can get a bulk loader and 100 feet of film and some canisters you will
be happy for a long time. you can roll film as may exposres as you want .. but that is besides the point/

with a roll of film expose 3 exposres for each view. 1 right on, one 2 clicks to the left and 1 2 clicks to the right
( 2 clicks is usually 1 f-stop cameras click at half f-stops ) ... develop the roll as you usually do
study / print the negatives and see which ones work the best for you. do the same test and develop your film 30% longer and 30% less
and then you will have figured out what exposure and development works best for you and your printing.

good luck !
john

DF said:

Everything up until past few months has been great since starting B&W 4 years ago - shooting/printing/developing.
'Haven't changed anything concerning exposure/development/"personal style"/etc.
Prints are terrible - way too contrasty - almost no grey, dark areas too dark/dense, light areas too light, or washed out.
'Last explanation is over-exposed film - negatives too dense, but, I've always was able to get a good print out of them reguardles.
I admit my technical understanding is minimal, photography I enjoy but perhaps it's time to learn it "right"?

Click to expand...

There's a certain respect-worthy, humble cachet about the guy/girl that always assumes they know nothing and goes back to the basics from square one again by choice. Some people at the point you are at now would already be starting to think that they were really experienced and expert old hands whilst blaming other things for what they are not seeing in their work. I find your post wholly admirable.

Back to basics is good starting with composition and exposure and moving on to fresh chemicals and paper.

What paper are you using?

What light source are you using?

And what print developer are you using?

Here is a basic concept. Exposure builds density and development builds contrast. To the untrained eye dense negatives can appear to be caused by either. It sounds like your negatives are suffering either or both these problems.

My advice would be to get a good book(s) on photography and read it thoroughly. The problem with the internet is that it may be good for specific questions bur really lousy when you need more. Photography is an art which depends on many things. I would suggest something like the Ansel Adams series; The Camera, The Negative, The Print. Well worth the investment.

Congratulations for realizing that you need help. One question. What are you doing that is different than in the past? Something has changed in the past few months.

My Pan F Plus neg.'s are as always,on average, overexposed by one & one/half stops, so they are denser then need be, but I could always get a good print out of them, prints with good grey balence. I overdevelop them by about a minute and one/half, in Dektal 1:1. This "formula" has served me well all along, as erronious as it might be, but sure enough, I've got to start working on modifying it - taking chances IOW.
I'll have to give a chance at exposing & developing less, 'just that it's hard to let go and try something diferent when you thought you had it all down pat.