How can I match this professional print??

[Doremus Scudder]

Hi Doremus, That actually IS two separate images that Nige has posted; merely combined into one image to keep them right up against each other for a good side by side comparison.
The diagonal line shows very clearly that something has been bumped between exposures. I don't think focus is an issue because, beneath the two slightly offset exposures, one can still see either film grain or building texture.
I'm with Nige, definite movement there.

Other than that, just the opening up of that bottom left shadowed area and less of the 1.5 grade exposure around the freize to give those details better contrast and clarity and you're pretty much there, Brian. Well done! ☺
By the way, if I'm making a direct replica of another print for someone, I put the original print in my easel and focus the negative on that. That way the crop and any sort of tilt/straightening can be exactly matched very easily.

Nick's Print:
View attachment 411977

Brian's Print:
View attachment 411978

Ah, yes! Definitely some movement/pop there. I finally see what everyone has been talking about. The double line is so pronounced, I though it was part of the original image!

OP, where is the next attempt?

Doremus

 

[BobUK]

Koraks, I don't see any double lines, even in the cropped section you posted. If there are double lines, that, indeed, points to movement. A popping negative or bumping the enlarger or jiggling it during exposure will certainly cause those.

Partial quote.


Just in case you have still not spotted them, looking at the original posters prints have a look at the joint of the paving stones beneath the mans foot.
Also, on the same level as the white shopping bag, look at the vertical joint lines either side of the man.

The double lines only appear to be from the middle of the picture and the left hand side.

Doubtless some people will probably see more defects in the print than I.

A lot of work has been put into making the print by the OP, it would be nice to hear about and see the final good print.



p.s. oops!
I have just noticed you found the double lines.
Egg on my face.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The yolk is really on me! I'm the one who couldn't spot the double lines in the first place

 

[ezphotolessons]

I'm convinced.

The OP is markedly silent, by the way. Last seen two days ago, but left again without commenting. Maybe he's in the darkroom.

he’s moved on . I don’t think the enlarger bump was noticed on the print. Who looks at a print with a magnifying glass?

 

[Pieter12]

he’s moved on . I don’t think the enlarger bump was noticed on the print. Who looks at a print with a magnifying glass?

Someone who is not satisfied with the print, especially if there is a better one to compare it to.

 

[koraks]

Who looks at a print with a magnifying glass?

The person who was dissatisfied with the rendering of fine detail in the print. See post #1.

 

[snusmumriken]

Who looks at a print with a magnifying glass?

The kind of person who focuses the enlarger with a focussing aid.

 

[Pieter12]

The kind of person who focuses the enlarger with a focussing aid.

And?

 

[snusmumriken]

And?

You ok? And what?

 

[ezphotolessons]

I figured there was details and there are details. My mistake. Thought the micro movements might have part of the atmosphere.