Help with a Print

[SuzanneR]

I'm hoping that the printing masters of APUG could help with a negative that I'm having trouble with. The attached negative was made last summer in southeast, Massachusetts in the middle of a hot, bright summer day. Great "cape light" in the area!! I've also attached a scan of the print.

It's been my experience that the sky in photos from the cape can get blown out. (Especially at mid-day!!) I knew how bright it was, and tried to deal with the sky, by not dealing with it all, and, well, basically, keep it out of the photo!! Unfortunately, couldn't eliminate it completely, and caught some glare along the top of the frame... spilling over a stone wall making the light around his face rather flat!

The print is a split grade, on Ilford WT in LPD. I dodged the face during the highlight exposure, and burned it in on a 5 filter. (well... 200 magenta) Since I have no more tricks up my sleeve to increase the contrast on his face, I wonder if the printing Gods of APUG would be able to offer some ideas. Or should I just live with its flaws?

I'm fond of this image, and any advice would be appreciated. TIA!

 

[df cardwell]

Neat picture Suzanne: what film and developer did you use ?

d

 

[SuzanneR]

Hp5 @200 in DDX. I probably should have used some kind of card, or hat, or hand to block the glare?? But I was also watching four kids at the time... so didn't quite think of it!! I would love to just get his profile to "pop" out from the stones.

 

[Les McLean]

Suzanne this is a very simple problem to deal with. Application of a little post flash with white light to the top of the print where the offending highlighs are will reduce the raw brightness to look like a soft cloudless sky. Do not be afraid to allow some of the white light to spill on to the surrounding darker tones, the effect on them will be insignificant. I use an RH Designs flasher to do this but you can also use a second enlarger with the lens fully stopped down. Clearly you will need to carry out s test to determine the correct exposure and don't be afraid to give it enough to in effect fog the paper in the white areas of sky. I use this little dodge on many of my prints.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi Suzzane

You are using a dichroic head which makes it a little bit harder, but here is what I would try.
It seems the mid tones ie rock face and the boys face are very close together in tonality. By using full yellow and full magenta I don't think I could make a better image than what you have shown.

For this type of scene I would split the image into three areas.. Highlight, Midtone and shadow.

I would start with a basic pack that gives the best tonality for the rock and face of the boy,
Then I would Flash or Burn with Full Yellow Filter with the negative in the areas of highlight that require tone.* my use of the word flash is with neg in*
I would then Expose in Full Magenta until the contrast of the overall scene meets my approval. Basically good blacks and lower midtone.

so initial exposure at good mid tone balance
second exposure full yellow for highlights
third exposure full magenta for shawdows

* there would be those that also recommend a pre - flash without the negative in the enlarger* If you do so make sure you do a slight bleach sepia to burn off any unwanted greys in the highlights.

hope this helps

 

[SuzanneR]

Thank you, Les and Bob. Any thoughts on flashing with one enlarger? When I've flashed paper in the past I've usually done a preflash on the whole sheet ahead of time.

Bob... the three exposure method may be the easiest way to go for me. Admittedly, my highlight exposure was at 80Y, not full yellow. Might be a good way for me to "flash" the paper, without taking the neg out.

Thank you, both. I'll post in the gallery when I feel it's worthy!!

 

[photomc]

Well, can't comment with any additonal help...but can tell you Les must have gotten his message across...first thing I thought of when I read your post Suzanne was 1. flash the paper, and 2. ask Les....then I find Les post, so ....

 

[df cardwell]

Hi Suzanne.

I'm such a barbarian. Use a diffuser beneath the lens ( don't remove the negative ).

A styrofoam coffee cup works well. If you have some Rosco Tough Rolux on hand ( and you should ! ) that works better. Any old thing. White paper.

Pre-flash.

The HP-5 & DD-X, though, suggests there may be plenty of data in the negative that you can retrieve.

Have you ever used 2 bath development ?

If not, it's easy. LPD, Dektol, and most of the rest, are pretty contrasty developers. Dilution doesn't change that. Selectol-Soft is lower contrast. Mix Selectol-Soft, use it in the first bath, and expose until you get the detail & tone in the sky you like.

It will probably have shadows that are too soft, possibly even muddy. To deepen the blacks, simply place the print into LPD / DEKTOL ( AT A HIGHER THAN NORMAL DILUTION ) until the blacks perk up.

Ansel talks about this in The Print.

So, you have 3 very different techniques: pre-flash, split filter, and 2 bath. Because the film and developer make a VERY long scale, I bet two bath will give you a better print. Had you used a combination that either has an early shoulder, or a steep contrast, pre-flash and filtration are necessary for putting tone into the print from an empty negative.

There is a fourth way, that often does the trick: a simple water bath.

Adjust the contrast until the midtones are a little to contrasty. Then, determine the exposure to print in the sky as you like, developing in normal developer, for your normal time ( say, 2 - 3 minutes ).

Then make an exposure at that time, and put the paper into the developer for thirty seconds, drain for ten, then slip it into the tray of water for a minute. Let it drain, then back into the developer for another 30 seconds. It's pretty intuitive. 2 or three cycles usually do the trick. Fine tuning follows a good, dry proof. Good luck !

.

 

[removed account4]

SNIP

There is a fourth way, that often does the trick: a simple water bath.

i have also done this in conjunction with re-exposing and burning in after pulling the print from the water bath - kind of like burning / solarization - and that worked too.

good luck!

john

 

[jeroldharter]

I don't have anything to add about the printing. However, I think I am learning alot listining to the conversation.

There are alot of people on this forum who are very helpful and probably good teachers.

I think it would be a great additional feature to the forum if a panel of experienced printers could do their magic with negatives and prints submitted by members. For example, if the negative and print in this example were sent to some of the contributors so they could print it themselves. Then the negative, original print, and expert print could be posted with detailed explanations and technical data. I would pay for that. Perhaps a monthly or quarterly teaching module. Just a thought.

 

[gnashings]

A big round of applause for Jerold! Me too! Me too!

 

[SuzanneR]

Thank you, all for the responses! It's great to get information like this at the tip of my finger tips!!

And, yes, Jerold and Gnashings... these type of threads are extremely helpful. Especially for those of us toiling away alone, and too far away from a class or community darkroom! Sometimes, when I hit a wall, and run out of ideas... well, APUG is a great resource. Next best thing to having Les, Bob, Don or John working in the darkroom with me!!

Again, thanks, everyone. I'll be getting back to this one later this week!

 

[Donald Miller]

In order to determine the proper tool to use one must define the problem that needs to be addressed.

The problem with this photo and negative is that the overall contrast is excessive. While pre flashing or even post flashing of the printing paper is possible, it is by no means the only way to solve this problem. In fact it may not be the most suitable tool to use under the circumstances.

The following are all ways to deal with excessive overall contrast:

1. Split grade printing

2. Post or Pre Flashing of the paper.

3. Split development of the printing paper (soft developer followed by a hard developer)

4. Water bath development...requires a developer with sufficient activity to remain active in the water bath.

5. Contrast reduction masking of the camera negative.

6. Unsharp masking of the camera negative.

7. Dye dodging of the camera negative.

8. Burning and/or dodging of the print.

9. Burn masking of the camera negative

10. Dodge masking of the camera negative

All of the above will have the effect of reducing overall contrast. Not all accomplish the same thing or work on the problem in the same way. In every instance where one deals with reduction of overall contrast there is a resultant effect on local contrast in specific tonal regions of the print. In order to arrive at the proper choice of which method to use, one must determine where this effect on local contrast will be the most palatable and hence least noticeable.

Some, such as pre or post flashing will compress highlight tonal separation. Some, such as masking will compress low value separation.

As I mentioned at the outset, the negative and print must be judged on it's own merits or lack thereof to arrive at the most effective solution to the problem. This is not a case of "one size fits all".

Considering the print in question, I am not sure that I would opt for pre or post flashing of the paper.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Don, that's an excellent summation of the methods available to deal with the problem. Thanks.

 

[df cardwell]

Hi Suzanne

I looked at my tests of HP5 with DD-X: a virtually straight line from Zone II beyond a density of 2.2... about 14 1/2 stops ! I'd be shocked if you can't print this negative on fiber paper ( like Ilford MG FB warm ) in Selectol Soft.

.

 

[Troy Hamon]

Lots of interesting suggestions from the masters here. I don't consider myself a master at all, but my impression is that the suggestions so far primarily relate to toning down the sky highlights. But my understanding of the original question was that it was equally of concern, or perhaps of greater concern, to bring greater contrast to the face. My only suggestion beyond what you have already done is to try localized bleaching of the face after the development. A Q-tip and some bleach...unfortunately I'm not enough of an expert on bleaching to say more than that...maybe somebody else here can give more specifics or say if this is a bad idea.

 

[SuzanneR]

I had thought about bleaching, but like you, have very little experince with it. So I'm hoping to get the highlights and the contrast on his face under control on the print. Perhaps, then, if I still feel like it needs to pop a bit, I'll give it a try.

Again... everyone! Thanks for all the help.

 

[joeyk49]

... these type of threads are extremely helpful. Especially for those of us toiling away alone, ....... Sometimes, when I hit a wall, and run out of ideas... well, APUG is a great resource. Next best thing to having Les, Bob, Don or John working in the darkroom with me!!

Amen to that Suzanne! I can't contribute to your solution, but I'm really happy that you posed the question.

Joe