Need help getting systematic on _everything_ - get me past the beginner plateau!

I'd recommend David Vestal's Craft of Photography. There is a chapter that shows the relationships between different negs exposed and processed different ways off normal and the resulting prints. It is pretty comprehensive. And it is visual, so there is nothing to interpret.

But you need to simplify. One film and one developer. Don't change until every roll you shoot is good. Then only change a little but keep shooting the same film/developer combo for at least 80% of your rolls.

Even the experienced among us find it a PITA to change films, like when they are discontinued.... If you took a survey of accomplished photographers you would find that for the most part they never change even thought they have the skill and knowledge to make the change. It just isn't worth it. No magic bullets in this world. That goes for your ORWO film. What are you going to do when you can't get any more of it? You'll have to start over. Why bother? And if you have a question about it, who has the experience to answer it? No one. Delta 100 on the other hand...

MattKing said:

...But if this is just one shot in a mixed lighting roll, it makes sense to increase contrast at the printing stage - try grade 3.

Click to expand...

No luck with the tomato at grade 3. The test print is from 2 seconds to 22 seconds by half-stops, the rebate along the top doesn't make it to black (compared to the little dmax sample) even on the dark end, yet all is murk. I've had so much trouble with my process this time around, that as a sanity check I grabbed an old negative I'd had some success printing two days ago, and thanks to my new regime of actually taking notes, was able to do a quick reprint and it matched Sunday's result. I'm including he negatives side by side on the phone and the other print just for fun, but I'm not too hung up on this boring tomato especially as I have no more of this expired Ultrafine, so please feel free to stop throwing time at this if you've had enough.

Patrick Robert James said:

But you need to simplify. One film and one developer. Don't change until every roll you shoot is good. Then only change a little but keep shooting the same film/developer combo for at least 80% of your rolls...That goes for your ORWO film. What are you going to do when you can't get any more of it?

Click to expand...

100% need to simplify. But I'm not too worried about my ORWO - I'll enjoy shooting it even if I can't get more. I'm just looking for journeyman status here, I'm too old and too busy to worry about anything more.

PFGS said:

No luck with the tomato at grade 3.

Click to expand...

That is a different negative - the first one was #13, this one is #17, and is under-exposed.
Not fair - were you checking to see if I was paying attention?

MattKing said:

That is a different negative - the first one was #13, this one is #17, and is under-exposed.
Not fair - were you checking to see if I was paying attention?

Click to expand...

Good eye, but I didn't do that on purpose - those were equivalent exposures (at least, in my Canon's opinion), #13 with no filter, #17 with a yellow-green filter. The photos of the negatives on the phone, however, are unlikely to be equivalent exposures. They are on opposite ends of a strip of 5 frames, I must have put down the wrong end. I definitely printed #13.

That test print is either from a different negative than #13, or there is something severely compromised about your printing setup.
The shadows are totally different, among other things.

I haven't read through each post. Before giving yourself 16 credit hours of college level reading of text books. I would choose a Ilford film stock, Delta 100 is fine, HP5 etc.

Buy Ilford liquid chemistry in small quantities. Go to Ilford's website and follow there wonderful instructions. One of Ilford's former employees is "Darkroom Dave" Butcher. Dave has online tutorials that are simple and very effective.
https://www.darkroomdave.com/

Ilford is supporting every element of analog black and white. They aren't back ordered or telling people that brown Dektol is AOK.

Keep your head calm and focused. Buy a cheap bound composition book, a few dollars. Write down everything.

Don't try to contact print everything at once. If Ilford says develop your print for 2 minutes at 20° C do that, use a timer and a thermometer. Start with Ilford's site. If you follow the instructions you will have nice prints. Save the Zone system until you have need.

PFGS said:

This approach works for me with cooking, darkroom not so much.

Click to expand...

I dont see any great differences, except don't taste test sodium sulfite. In the end the proof is in the pudding and you should use what ever method gets you the results you want.

MattKing said:

That test print is either from a different negative than #13, or there is something severely compromised about your printing setup.
The shadows are totally different, among other things.

Click to expand...

Matt, you've been way too willing to help for me to ever deliberately want to trick or confuse you so I apologize for the crappy shot of the print - the shadows you are seeing are glare, reflections, and curvature from me holding it. That was a really quick snapshot from my phone just before bed. I know I printed from #13 because my 8 year old was helping me in the darkroom by reading off f-stop timing numbers, and I had just finished explaining to him both how frame numbers work, and why I'd taken 6 shots of the same thing.

Here is #13 and #17 together - not much to choose between them. I think in the very first picture of #13 on it's own, it's just a much darker photo overall - look at the difference in white points in the phone screen background. As you said, evaluating these things on a screen is tricky.

My process could well be compromised but the shot of the cast iron railing escaped it - twice. Anyway, I think my next move is going to be to take a few days off, set these Ultrafine rolls aside in favor of my apparently crowd-pleasing choice of Delta 100, and when I go back in to the darkroom, print with a fresh bottle of Iford MULTIGRADE paper developer, which, unlike the now slightly yellowing Sprint Systems paper developer I've been using, has published times for MGRC Deluxe.

P.S. apparently scanning negatives with a macro lens and one's phone is what all the kids are doing, might have to look into that for all these unprintable negs...

mshchem said:

I haven't read through each post. Before giving yourself 16 credit hours of college level reading of text books...Save the Zone system until you have need.

Click to expand...

Yep. I appreciate the book suggestions, but many that people have mentioned I've already paged through in the past (I have access to a good University art department library) and those that are not very basic are way too complex. I have a hard time believing that home darkrooms would ever have been as popular as they were if all that was required to get decent negatives and reasonably efficient printing of ordinary scenes, like I want. I will check out Darkroom Dave.

PFGS said:

I have a hard time believing that home darkrooms would ever have been as popular as they were if all that was required to get decent negatives and reasonably efficient printing of ordinary scenes, like I want.

Click to expand...

Yes & no: some films are pretty user-proof if you don't need the highest possible quality - and in the past a lot of home users didn't go beyond an 8x10. Pre-digital, amateur qualitative expectations/ standards were very different from professional/ artist quality expectations/ standards. But the manufacturers data also includes some simple approaches that drastically improve ease of printing and deliver smoother tonality & largely equate to: halve box speed & take 20-30% off the 'box speed' process times. For example, there are times provided for rating FP4+ at 50, and Delta 400 at 200 - which work just fine.

Patrick Robert James said:

I'd recommend David Vestal's Craft of Photography. There is a chapter that shows the relationships between different negs exposed and processed different ways off normal and the resulting prints. It is pretty comprehensive. And it is visual, so there is nothing to interpret.

But you need to simplify. One film and one developer. Don't change until every roll you shoot is good. Then only change a little but keep shooting the same film/developer combo for at least 80% of your rolls.

Even the experienced among us find it a PITA to change films, like when they are discontinued.... If you took a survey of accomplished photographers you would find that for the most part they never change even thought they have the skill and knowledge to make the change. It just isn't worth it. No magic bullets in this world. That goes for your ORWO film. What are you going to do when you can't get any more of it? You'll have to start over. Why bother? And if you have a question about it, who has the experience to answer it? No one. Delta 100 on the other hand...

Click to expand...

+1. !!!

PFGS said:

Yep. I appreciate the book suggestions, but many that people have mentioned I've already paged through in the past (I have access to a good University art department library) and those that are not very basic are way too complex. I have a hard time believing that home darkrooms would ever have been as popular as they were if all that was required to get decent negatives and reasonably efficient printing of ordinary scenes, like I want. I will check out Darkroom Dave.

Click to expand...

the difference was that back in the day ( I learned in the 70s and 80s ) people weren't going out and buying 10 cameras, some working some defunct, and others well in need of a CLA that never got done ( so no clue what exposes were ), and people typically used 1 film because that was what was available. Local pro shops where I am and local mom-pop camera stores never carried much variety because, well, the world wasn't as small as it is now and people made due with what they had. nowadays people have to curate what they shoot with because there are too many choices and people buy and flail, they have to curate what they expose on because there are too many choices, and of course people are cheep and buy crappy expired film and don't know why they don't get good results or results that are sometimes good and sometimes well, not good, and people have to curate what they print on ( see comment on film and substitute paper for film ) ... and worst of all people don't bother curating their work because the bar has been set so low that mediocre imagery is pervasive all over the internet ( and said to be "great!" ), people have no idea what a good print looks like or what a good negative looks like because its all a faxsimile of what they have, they tweet it in PS and then when they upload or post to their favorite image sharing platform and impress. people, friends, family, strangers, the-vast-unwashed-influenced, they often are untruthful of what the print looks like because they did things in PS they couldn't do in the dark red room, so its all smoke and mirrors. "back in the day". people had a print in their hands and showed it to someone and that was that...
1 film 1 developer, 1 camera ( that has been CLA'd recently ) 1 paper ... maybe send a print to a friend, or get a print to put in your darkroom to look at from someone whose work you like so you know what a good print looks like. its hard to know what good is when, well you don't have any good near you to compare your work to ..

don't forget to have fun
John

Lachlan Young said:

...halve box speed & take 20-30% off the 'box speed' process times...

Click to expand...

Funny you would mention this. Towards the end of my period of wild and pointless experimentation, I started shooting many rolls of Delta 100 at 80, 64, or 50 and processing at reduced times in Xtol, usually in blazing North Carolina sunshine, before giving up film completely for a while. I had already dismantled the darkroom at that point, but these rolls scanned well - some sample scans below. The cast iron railing print I had some success with Sunday and again last night was from one of these rolls.

PFGS said:

times in Xtol

Click to expand...

if you get soft results that lack in contrast it might be your developer. extol is not a hard working "crisp" negative developer from my (close to ) 30 years of using it
you might consider vanilla like d76 or sprint film developer or ID11. I stopped using extol because it was not dependable for me to get results I wanted (read-negatives that had contrast and density) maybe your problem isn't you but your chemistry.

jnantz said:

if you get soft results that lack in contrast it might be your developer. extol is not a hard working "crisp" negative developer from my (close to ) 30 years of using it
you might consider vanilla like d76 or sprint film developer or ID11. I stopped using extol because it was not dependable for me to get results I wanted (read-negatives that had contrast and density) maybe your problem isn't you but your chemistry.

Click to expand...

I was liking xtol for the fine grain in scanning 35mm, a task I find singularly tedious, and shooting in that lunchtime glaring sunlight, I still had plenty of contrast. But this time around, I've not been planning on using xtol if for no other reason than I was never able to use it up before it went bad (or before I was paranoid that it might have). I've got about 800 ml of old-school, last-forever HC-110 to use up before anything else.

jnantz said:

...1 film 1 developer, 1 camera ( that has been CLA'd recently ) 1 paper ... don't forget to have fun
John

Click to expand...

Lots of truth to all the above, and lessons I learned the hard way - I can only wish I bought just 10 cameras. The ORWO DN21 will be a fun film and should scan forgivingly, while I methodically refine a full darkroom process with the Delta 100. At 46, I'm at least just old enough to remember slightly different standards and purposes of photography. In some respects the late 80s-early 90s where a bit of a dark age, I think, for the average "family" photographer, dominated by point-and-shoots, APS, shitty drugstore mini-labs, very little B&W work, and endless fuzzy 4x6s. But I have been lucky enough to see good work in person in museums and galleries, and have a decent collection of art photography books, the printing of which has come a long way in recent years. As much as anything else, for me analog photography is about taking a break from my full-time computer based job and the increasing encroachments of those technologies into our off hours, getting my sons into the experience of a hands-on process, and the simple happiness of a fresh, not totally terrible wet print - when I keep all that in mind, I never forget to have fun.

It needs to be said that the picture of the tomato and the fence are two totally different lighting situation. The tomato is very low contrast. See the deep black highlights of the fence negative. The lighting range of the tomato is maybe 4 doublings of light, which you are trying to make into 9 doublings, paper white to black.
It is easier to do test prints in the fashion that you did. But it would be way more informative if you centered on the tomato and just two or three fstop times in order to compare the same visual item.
Lastly if grade 3 is to muddy, then go t o 4 or 5; also if 2 sec at that enlarging fstop makes whites too dark, close the fstop. But again your whites in this photo are only going to make 3 stops darker than paper white.

cowanw said:

It needs to be said that the picture of the tomato and the fence are two totally different lighting situation. The tomato is very low contrast. See the deep black highlights of the fence negative. The lighting range of the tomato is maybe 4 doublings of light, which you are trying to make into 9 doublings, paper white to black.
It is easier to do test prints in the fashion that you did. But it would be way more informative if you centered on the tomato and just two or three fstop times in order to compare the same visual item.
Lastly if grade 3 is to muddy, then go t o 4 or 5; also if 2 sec at that enlarging fstop makes whites too dark, close the fstop. But again your whites in this photo are only going to make 3 stops darker than paper white.

Click to expand...

Yep - tomato was shot in the shade of a building in defuse morning light, fence was shot in the open full blazing mid-afternoon sun. Sorry if it seemed like I was comparing apples to oranges, it was just a sanity check that my overall process was functioning.

Is my basic idea that the print exposure should give a black rebate, whatever else is going on, generally correct?

Patrick Robert James said:

I'd recommend David Vestal's Craft of Photography...

Click to expand...

Really enjoying this book right now.

EDIT: ok, loving this book. Good, practical, detailed tests and procedures, no overkill.

PFGS said:

I was liking xtol for the fine grain in scanning 35mm, a task I find singularly tedious, and shooting in that lunchtime glaring sunlight, I still had plenty of contrast. But this time around, I've not been planning on using xtol if for no other reason than I was never able to use it up before it went bad (or before I was paranoid that it might have). I've got about 800 ml of old-school, last-forever HC-110 to use up before anything else.

Click to expand...

I really wouldn't worry about the grain in 35mm ( are you blowing stuff up to 40x60? look at work done by Guillaume zuili who comes here once in a. while. he is doing 40x60 enlargements (enlarger) with a pinhole and grain ). if you are scanning you won't see much grain no matter what developer you use, except maybe Rodinal or print developer besides the grain is supposed to be there if you are using non tabular grained film, tri x hp, I guess people use a magnifying glass to look at photographs ( I never have ) from what I understand its only photographers who put their nose to the print and inspect or care about the grain, but what do I know, I'm wrong often ... I don't know the orwa you are using but personally I would ditch that if you are learning how to do stuff, gonna be a drag like Patrick said previously. get films that are made NOW. that are fresh .. get a bulk loader and 100 foot rolls, get them from IDK photowarehouse/ultrafine they are a photrio sponsor stick them in your fridge they will last a long time. that way you shoot small rolls, get used to what you get used to get used to your developer, don't use ancient hc110 because it lasts, get fresh stuff that you know is good and use that ( rumors has it that old HC110 is different than what is being made now so when you run out you will have a stick in your spokes again ) I never get why anyone who is learning how to do something from the beginning uses old stuff of unknown origin.
regarding the 80s and 90s being the dark ages, you are woefully mistaken. there was astounding work being made then by competent darkroom workers who make many in this day and age pale in comparison. crappy machine prints are still being made today. besides family scrapbook and family photo albums is what consumer cameras &c were made on, cash cow. its what is pushing the digital camera and cellphone market today, nothing has changed...
sell your 200 cameras, just use 1, send it to your favorite repair guy ( I have 2, midstate and zacks ) have them make sure it is in working order, get some FRESH NEW developer, film, don't go by massive developing chart or what you read by people on the internet but go by what the manufacturer says to do for dilutions and developing times ( except fo the half box speed which may or may not work for you ). people who give advice are helpful but often times have different working methods, different lighting conditions, different water supply they mix their chemicals with, different agitation techniques, cameras that might beCLA'd or maybe not so what works for them is a crap shoot, and wasted time and effort for you...
photography is only as hard as you make it, its only figuring out the relationship from the film and chemicals and camera and light and paper ( if you print ) that's the easy part, its the learning how to see that's the hard part.
have fun ! ( is the most important part )
John

There is lots there on those negatives.
If you can easily do this digitally, you can get good darkroom prints as well:

jnantz said:

I really wouldn't worry about the grain in 35mm. if you are scanning you won't see much grain no matter what developer you use, except maybe Rodinal or print developer besides the grain is supposed to be there if you are using non tabular grained film, tri x hp.. I don't know the orwa you are using but personally I would ditch that if you are learning how to do stuff, gonna be a drag like Patrick said previously. get films that are made NOW. that are fresh .. get a bulk loader and 100 foot rolls, get them from IDK photowarehouse/ultrafine they are a photrio sponsor stick them in your fridge they will last a long time. that way you shoot small rolls, get used to what you get used to get used to your developer, don't use ancient hc110 because it lasts, get fresh stuff that you know is good and use that. I never get why anyone who is learning how to do something from the beginning uses old stuff of unknown origin.
regarding the 80s and 90s being the dark ages, you are woefully mistaken. there was astounding work being made then by competent darkroom workers who make many in this day and age pale in comparison.
sell your 200 cameras, just use 1, send it to your favorite repair guy ( I have 2, misstate and zacks ) have them make sure it is in working order, get some FRESH NEW developer, don't go by massive developing chart or what you read by people on the internet but go by what the manufacturer says to do for dilutions and developing times ( except fo the half box speed which may or may not work for you ). people who give advice are helpful but often times have different working methods, different lighting conditions, different water supply they mix their chemicals with, different agitation techniques, cameras that might beCLA'd or maybe not so what works for them is a crap shoot, and wasted time and effort for you...
photography is only as hard as you make it, its only figuring out the relationship from the film and chemicals and camera and light and paper ( if you print ) that's the easy part, its the learning how to see that's the hard part.
have fun ! ( is the most important part )
John

Click to expand...

John, not to be cranky and I know you're trying to help but - are you reading my posts? The 200 cameras are in the past, long since sold off, those that remain are rock-solid; my ORWA film - which you admit you don't know - is fresh and current production, as is the rest of my film, chemistry and paper; I already bulk load; my HC-110 isn't ancient, just plentiful; and I said "dark ages" for ordinary family photos, not the fine art world or even good darkroom amateurs - I have a signed copy of "Immediate Family" and a giant Robert Mapplethorpe compendium on the shelves, among others - the late 80s/early 90s were unquestionably a time of diminished expectations for family snapshots, easily confirmed by my great-grandmother's stash of fiber-based black and whites vs. the crappy piles of drugstore color-film envelops depicting my own childhood... these are the conditions that primed the masses for digital, even though it was pretty awful at first.

I've pretty much made the fresh start of abandoning old, bad habits - looking for tips on moving forward.

MattKing said:

There is lots there on those negatives.
If you can easily do this digitally, you can get good darkroom prints as well:
View attachment 252705

Click to expand...

So what do you think went wrong?

I know from experience that I can bludgeon almost any negative scan into a half-way decent result in photoshop; my digital chops are far ahead of my analog thanks to a few years doing inkjet editions from original paintings.

PFGS said:

Yep - tomato was shot in the shade of a building in defuse morning light, fence was shot in the open full blazing mid-afternoon sun. Sorry if it seemed like I was comparing apples to oranges, it was just a sanity check that my overall process was functioning.

Is my basic idea that the print exposure should give a black rebate, whatever else is going on, generally correct?

Click to expand...

I think that idea is that the rebate of a proof sheet should be done with the minimum exposure to give a black in the rebate at a grade that lets you see everything in the image.
Making a print is independent of that, choosing how you want the print to look aesthetically. You obviously want more contrast in that image so choose a higher grade. Go for a grade 5 print with an enlarger fstop and time that gives you a white somewhere. Then you will know what is possible at either end between mud and soot and chalk.

PFGS said:

So what do you think went wrong?

I know from experience that I can bludgeon almost any negative scan into a half-way decent result in photoshop; my digital chops are far ahead of my analog thanks to a few years doing inkjet editions from original paintings.

Click to expand...

Doing test strips is an art in itself .
Start by acknowledging that the negative is a bit low in contrast, and try again at grade 3.
When you do your test progression, do some exposures that go farther - you need to be sure that you are attaining full black.
When you evaluate the tests for exposure, you need to key on an upper mid-tone or low highlight - something like the circled area here:


Once you arrive at a base exposure that gives you satisfactory upper midtones, adjust the contrast to give you satisfactory shadows. If you based your exposure determination on an upper midtone, using the speed matching capability in most variable contrast systems should allow you to change contrast with little or no change in exposure.
When you have a result that is satisfactory as to overall contrast and exposure, use judicious amounts of dodging and burning adjustments to enhance the results - I would guess that a bit of dodging of the tomato highlights might add some sparkle.