New to photography and need help with printing!

[R Smith]

When my kid gets home i will use her digital camera to photograph the print because is so much better that the scan i posted.

 

[R Smith]

:munch:

I think he nailed it. Your negative is underexposed. Even with effort it'll be hard to print. Do you have a different negative to try? First attempts are hard enough without trying to deal with hard to print negatives.

That is the only negative that i have.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Keep doing what you're doing. You're well on your way. Your first print looks better than my first print.

For what it's worth - Ilford HP5 and Rodinal is a good combination - if you like grain, which I do. I've used Ilford Delta 3200 with Rodinal and to me it's magical. Grain isn't necessarily bad, and you may find that you change your mind about it in the future. The best way to get the least amount of grain is to use a finer grained film rather than a different developer. The TMax 400 and TMax combination is a very good one if you want very little grain for ISO 400 film.

- Thomas

 

[JBrunner]

The Bertilsson speaks with wisdom. Its magic bullets were cast off during the Illumination de Thomas epoch.

 

[pentaxuser]

Glad you've largely solved the problem and the print looks a good effort. Just an opinion but if you look at a shadow area with detail in the test strip which seems to be the doorway, I'd go for no more than 7 secs and possibly 6 secs. The stonework at 6/7 secs still looks good although only you know how the stone work is best represented.

A decrease of 2/3 secs sounds a lot but it's worth a try. I speak as one who is always tempted to print too darkly and has to resist the urge.

I am not a fan of HP5+ and Rodinal but then again I am a grain-phobe. Depends on print size which I don't think you mention but if these negs are grainy at 8x10, try 5x7. The reduction makes a big difference IMO and for most viewing purposes, especially if you have a series to be seen 5x7 is a good size and a lot cheaper!

pentaxuser

 

[srs5694]

Is there a way to post the print in better quaility? The print is sharp and detailed but the post of the scan is terrible.

There are two likely causes of degradation between a print and a posted scan of the print:

1. Poor scan. The scanner hardware and/or software may be doing a poor job. If the hardware, there's really no solution but to get a new scanner. If it's the software, you may be able to try another scanning application or tweak the current software. There may also be things you can do to improve the scan quality without doing either, such as clean the scanner's glass or print on a different type of paper.
2. Overcompression when posting. Most posts on Internet sites are JPEGs, and JPEG is a lossy format. I don't know about APUG specifically, but some forum programs reduce the size of images and/or crank up the compression ratio, which degrades the quality of posted images. If these settings are hard-coded in the forum or image hosting site, there's not much you can do to overcome them, although pre-shrinking your images yourself and starting out with low compression (aka high quality) settings may do a bit to help. Alternatively, you could post the image on your own Web site and post a link rather than post directly to the forum.

You can determine in which class the problem belongs by comparing the image you upload to the image you see in your browser. If what you uploaded looks better than what your browser shows, then chances are #2 is happening; but if what you see before uploading looks similar to what your browser shows, then chances are #1 is happening. (One caveat: Browsers sometimes scale images themselves, and they usually do it badly. Be sure your browser isn't scaling an image. In Firefox, clicking a scaled image typically shows you the same image at full resolution.)

 

[JBrunner]

BTW very nice effort for your first print. Much better than mine. Congrats!!!

 

[MattKing]

As Jason says, a good effort for your first print.

Personally, it is so long ago, I cannot remember how well my first (contact) print came out (probably a blessing!).

Isn't it great watching that image appearing before you! I never tire of it!

Welcome, and have fun!

Matt

 

[fschifano]

I know there are real experts out there who are going to jump all over me for this. But I was taught by a bunch of old lab rats who did down and dirty production printing without a whole lot of analyzers, timers, etc. etc. They learned their craft in the 1930s and 1940s and taught me in the 1960s.

Put your negative strip in the carrier with a stripe of the clear film between frames in the center of the easel.
Stop your enlarger lens down to f11.
Make a test strip of the clear film, using three second intervals.
Develop the strip normally; fix. Wash. Dry.
Now find the first exposure patch that is as black as the remainder. That is your baseline exposure. Any part of your actual negative which is clear film will print as black in your print. Make the exposure of your neg at that time and f stop and let us know what you see. KISS.

It is really that simple, isn't it? All the analyzers in the world can't do a better job than that simple test. I use an enlarging meter myself, and calibrated it to the paper speed with a step wedge. After that's done, I get the readings to achieve max black off the clear space between frames. Works like a charm.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

No such epoch. It was more like an era.

The Bertilsson speaks with wisdom. Its magic bullets were cast off during the Illumination de Thomas epoch.

 

[Davidw]

Something I don't think has been addressed here, is where to judge the exposure from. I look for full detail in the highlights. Once I have that, then adjust the contrast by looking at the blacks. Look for a deep black in deep shadows. It looks like your image is flat based on that measure. Keep trying, the old joke about how to get to Carnegie Hall applys just as much to the darkroom as it does to music!