ilfordrapid said:
I have been trying to improve on preserving the feeling of light, and vitality in my landscapes. I use Ilford multigrade RC right now, but will be switching over to Ilford Multigrade Warmtone FB. My enlarger is a Beseler 23Clll Variable Contrast Diffusion Enlarger with dial in contrast (not the dichro head) My paper developer is Ilford Universal. I am very interested in hearing any advice you can give me. Many Thanks!
I'm assuming you're talking about tonal values that are luminous--- that "sing" as opposed to just lying there flat on the paper. This is a function of many factors, but two of the most important are paper choice and enhancing local contrast.
Assuming that you have well-exposed and correctly developed negs, you want to choose a paper that gives very good depth in the shadows and doesn't blow out the highlights-- in other words, paper with a long tonal scale.
I stopped using Ilford Multigrade IV fiber-base when I made comparison prints of the same negative on Agfa MCC Classic. In every case, there were more richly detailed shadows with clearer separation of tones on the Agfa paper. I could "see into" the shadows and detect nuances that I could not in the Ilford MG. However, Ilford Warmtone is another story; I suspect its the amount of chlorobromide in the emulsion that accounts for the difference. Warmtone is a fine paper.
Getting a particular tonal value to "sing" in the print turned a corner for me when I began using split filter printing. Any given print value had greater local contrast (micro tonal differences within a given value) than prints made with a single exposure dialed in on my colorhead. Try this experiment:
Run a test-strip print (in 3 second increments) at full yellow (or at the lowest contrast setting for your multigrade head). Do the same with another test print at full magenta (or highest contrast setting).
Then, on the low contrast print, look very carefully at the most important highlight areas. Are they too gray, creating a dull appearance? Are they blank white? Find the one that nearest approximates what you want in the final print. Then do the same for the contrasty test print, this time looking at the important shadow areas in which you want detail, finding the one that is not pure black, but also not too light. E.g., perhaps the best test strip on the low contrast print is 9 seconds at f/11. And the best strip on the high-contast print is 12 seconds at f/11.
Now, with a new sheet of paper, expose it for 12 at highest contrast setting. (It doesn't matter which one you start with.) Then change your head to the opposite setting and expose it for the correct time at that setting.
Then develop normally. Do any tweaking necessary to the two times to get a print that you're happy with without too much manipulation. That will become your standard exposure times for that particular brand of paper. From that point, you won't have to run test strips unless you have a very problematic neg or unless you want to change your size from, e.g. 8X10 to 11X14. For example, my standard times for Agfa MCC at 11X14 are 10 sec. Magenta and 8 sec. Yellow at f/11. That's where I begin with any new print, and very often, it's very close on the first try.
I don't fully understand why the split filter method gives me more luminous values with better local contrast; but that it does is beyond doubt.
Larry
