But having a zillion possibilities on hand, and a method for homing in on the right one, will give a better print in less time.
But having a zillion possibilities on hand, and a method for homing in on the right one, will give a better print in less time.My point is that introducing exposure variation with contrast control, you are introducing a mathematical variation by a million times. Combine that with split grade printing and the variation goes into the Zillion, thus putting exposure control out the window. Do you get my drift?
But having a zillion possibilities on hand, and a method for homing in on the right one, will give a better print in less time.
I take my hat for you in being able to select the right one.
Exactly.know how you want your print to look
Optimizing two things, like contrast and exposure is a bit more difficult, but not that much.
There is no prize for doing things the hard way. Besides, contrast should not be manipulated very much at all, except when using different lenses that have markedly different flare characteristics. The main objective of B&W photography is not tones but interesting images.
As chiseled in the holy stone of photography?
Well, why do you feel the need to manipulate contrast so much? Take a photo of a grey wall. Does it have to have a pure white or pure black? Of course not! Most of the great photographs we cherish are not manipulated at all! Isn't that ironic? Content!
Well, why do you feel the need to manipulate contrast so much? Take a photo of a grey wall. Does it have to have a pure white or pure black? Of course not! Most of the great photographs we cherish are not manipulated at all! Isn't that ironic? Content!
There are many times when I want a lot more contrast in the mid-tones or shadows of a print than would allow the highlights to be printed straight with and detail at all. In fact, a "straight print" that has exposure and contrast adjusted so the shadows and highlights both have "appropriate" detail rarely satisfies me. I plan on a lot more work in most cases.Having something like a Zonemaster makes it fairly easy. You meter the deepest shadow you want detail in, same with a highlight and the meter calculates a contrast grade to hold those values and an exposure. I can usually arrive at a print I want with 2 or 3 test strips after using the Zonemaster, depending on how fussy I want to be.
There are times I have tweaked things by 1/12 of a stop here and there, but the Zonemaster gets me very close, very quickly.
I beg to differ. I won't exhibit a print that has lousy tonalities. Bad prints of "interesting" subjects are all over the place and about as satisfying as an out-of-tune and full-of-missed-notes musical performance of a great piece.There is no prize for doing things the hard way. Besides, contrast should not be manipulated very much at all, except when using different lenses that have markedly different flare characteristics. The main objective of B&W photography is not tones but interesting images.
Well, most of the photographs I cherish are well-printed. Excellent photographers have always been excellent craftsmen. If contrast controls weren't available from printing paper, they were achieved other ways. I don't know what makes you think O'Sullivan, Hines, Steichen, White, Lartigue, Watkins, Karsh, Adams, Weston, Strand, etc., etc. (and etc.), (all from the list you linked to) were not excellent printers and, most importantly, "manipulated" their prints (and or negatives) to get the contrast and exposure they wanted. Aside from a few of the early photographs in the list that are of purely historical interest, the rest are expertly printed.Well, why do you feel the need to manipulate contrast so much? Take a photo of a grey wall. Does it have to have a pure white or pure black? Of course not! Most of the great photographs we cherish are not manipulated at all! Isn't that ironic? Content!
I beg to differ. I won't exhibit a print that has lousy tonalities. Bad prints of "interesting" subjects are all over the place and about as satisfying as an out-of-tune and full-of-missed-notes musical performance of a great piece.
When photographing, I'm concerning myself with what I point my camera at; when printing, I'm fully concentrated on tonalities. Somewhere between those two I've decided on cropping (usually when taking the image).
"Interesting is easy; beautiful is difficult." (Gustav Mahler)
Best,
Doremus
Well, most of the photographs I cherish are well-printed. Excellent photographers have always been excellent craftsmen. I
Doremus
Yeah, but the printers were good! Mapplethorpe's work is a great example. In this case, it's teamwork, but the result is the same: good exposure at the capture stage, good negative development and then good printing. No sloppiness is implied just because three different people do these things.This is false. Some were not. Many great photographers never worked in a darkroom, especially photojournalists.
Yeah, but the printers were good! Mapplethorpe's work is a great example. In this case, it's teamwork, but the result is the same: good exposure at the capture stage, good negative development and then good printing. No sloppiness is implied just because three different people do these things.
By the way, Ilford has a tutorial on split-grade printing if memory serves me correctly.
Doremus
You are correct. I learned how to split grade print from Ilford.By the way, Ilford has a tutorial on split-grade printing if memory serves me correctly.
Or simply choose the right filter or Magenta/Yellow combination on your colour head. Same result.Alot of the videos show the alternate method of using split grade as a sort of burning method.
Get the base exposure and contrast grade set for the shadows, and then go back and find the exposure for the high lights. then do the final print using both expsures.
*****These are not recommended by the manufacturers, and for good reason. Kodak (and others) has published extensive materials in the past on the best practices. It would make sense to study such materials than to repeat folklore about half-understood methods and techniques. Most workers do not even know how VC paper works.***I understand what you are saying; my point is that it is much easier to achieve high-quality prints than one would be led to believe after perusing this thread. I do it all the time! I imagine that most visitors to this forum are not looking for exotic or esoteric methods or processes. Professionals and amateurs alike have only so much time, and knowledge of the most efficient methods consistent with high quality is valuable knowledge. For the sake of the beginner or even advanced darkroom worker (especially 35mm camera user), it would be advisable to avoid promoting such techniques as stand development, split-grade printing, etc. These are not recommended by the manufacturers, and for good reason. Kodak (and others) has published extensive materials in the past on the best practices. It would make sense to study such materials than to repeat folklore about half-understood methods and techniques. Most workers do not even know how VC paper works. I remember a pro buying a package of Polycontrast paper at the shop where I worked. I asked him casually what filter he usually used. He said "My negatives are so good I don't need to use a filter".
Processes that are easy to control, simple to do, and reliable: this is the goal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?