Perishable skills. A frustrating return to the darkroom. Advice needed.

[redbandit]

Inkpress multi tone in 5x7 doesnt care what side is actually exposed to the enlarger lens,, it burns through in mere SECONDs... 3 seconds with the emulsion down on the easel is going to create a rather bright and vibrant image.

 

[drg3rd]

My most common mistake is putting the paper upside down on the easel, emulsion side facing it..

What could help generally when starting or going back to printing after a long time is to pin a check-list next to the enlarger, with each steps, in order, and stick to that order. An attempt at a verbose version, that would be in practice shortened and adapted to different workflows :

0. Enlarger and safe light are connected to a power source. Negative sleeve is out. Air blower, notebook, pen, scissors, and the focus finder are in sight. The trays are ready (in that order from left to right : dev, stop, fix, plain water). You wear an apron or clothes that you are ready to ruin. The people that live with you have been warned no to barge in the darkroom while you're in it. Each tray has a dedicated tong, or you're wearing gloves. Darkroom door is closed.
1. Dust the negative, put it in the negative holder. In full darkness or with safe light on, switch on the enlarger, adjust easel placement and enlarger height. The picture fit, easel height and width are < paper size. The image is roughly focused. Turn off the enlarger.
2. Stop down lens to f/8
3. Put a contrast filter of the estimated necessary grade (for exemple 2.5, or the equivalent magenta value with color head)
5. Enlarger on, regular light off, safe light on
6. Fine-focus the print with a focus finder
7. Enlarger off
8. Paper box out, cut tests strips. Place one test strip shiny side up on the easel. The others go back in the box. Close the paper box.
9. /! \ CHECK : no paper in sight but the one test strip, paper box is safely closed
10. /! \ CHECK : lens is at f/8, the contrast filter is in place
11. Timer set at increments (f-stops, 2s, 5s.. depending on the preferred method and the density of the negative)
12. Cover all but a part of the paper with thick black cardboard. Turn on the enlarger timer. When the enlarger automatically switches off, move the cardboard to reveal an other part of the paper. Switch on the timer. Repeat until all the paper is exposed.
13. Dev, stop and fix for the duration recommanded by the manufacturer (see bottles or available datasheets).
14. Put the test strip in the fourth tray with plain water.
15. /! \ CHECK : no paper in sight beside the fixed test strip, paper box is safely closed
16. Regular light on, analyse the first test print.

For the subsequent tests strips and prints :

- Write down what you'll do : aperture, grade, time
- Set the lens aperture
- Set the grade
- Set the timer
- Regular light off
- Take out one sheet or one test strip from the paper box, place the paper shiny side up on the easel, close the box.
- Check : paper box is safely closed, aperture, grade and timer are the desired values.
- Turn on the enlarger timer
- dev, stop, fix, water

Just last week I returned to the darkroom after 40 years or so. I took a refresher class at my local public darkroom and the next day ventured back to go it alone for a few hours. I managed to put a test sheet emulsion side down on the easel … twice! Glad to read that I am not alone. I’m sure there are many more blunders to follow, but I had a blast! I’m starting fairly small with 5x7s and not trying anything fancy - “easy” negatives, basic contrast, no dodging/burning. I am enjoying the process and seeing the results my film cameras were meant to produce.

 

[Kino]

Inkpress multi tone in 5x7 doesnt care what side is actually exposed to the enlarger lens,, it burns through in mere SECONDs... 3 seconds with the emulsion down on the easel is going to create a rather bright and vibrant image.

Hmmm... that could be interesting. What typical artifacts do you get?

Mistakes often provide unintended benefits.

 

[Kino]

Just last week I returned to the darkroom after 40 years or so. I took a refresher class at my local public darkroom and the next day ventured back to go it alone for a few hours. I managed to put a test sheet emulsion side down on the easel … twice! Glad to read that I am not alone. I’m sure there are many more blunders to follow, but I had a blast! I’m starting fairly small with 5x7s and not trying anything fancy - “easy” negatives, basic contrast, no dodging/burning. I am enjoying the process and seeing the results my film cameras were meant to produce.

Well, the most important thing is to have fun. Sounds like you have that covered!

 

[redbandit]

Hmmm... that could be interesting. What typical artifacts do you get?

Mistakes often provide unintended benefits.

a mirror image is all i have gotten... and a headache trying to figure out what side is what

 

[Kino]

a mirror image is all i have gotten... and a headache trying to figure out what side is what

I wondered if it caused halation or glows around highlights and paper texture to show in the image. Guess not...

 

[aparat]

I discovered an unopened 100-sheet box of Oriental VCFBII paper and a 25-sheet box of Arista Edu Ultra VCFB paper, which I probably bought around 2016. I tested the papers and made a couple of prints. This was quite a fortuitous discovery, as film and paper prices continue to climb. I am glad that I have enough of both to keep me going through the end of the year.

Here's a print I made on the Arista paper the other night, toned in selenium toner 1+9 for six minutes. It required a pre-flash exposure to give some tone to the sky. The sun was behind the subject, which made this rather tricky to print due to extreme brightness range. The reflective jacket added an additional challenge.

Portrait of a stranger in a cool reflective jacket by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

I also bought a box of the affordable B&H Multitone RC paper, thus using up my photography budget for 2023. I have just tested the paper and will post my analysis later. I scanned the following selenium-toned Multitone print in with VueScan without any manipulation beyond the default settings, and Color Balance set to None, and Sharpen Filter to None. I find that these settings give me a scan that is fairly close to what the print looks like, except for the banding artifacts and random smudges and dust specks. I processed this negative in Rodinal for 60 minutes, using semi-stand agitation. I was experimenting. This is not my usual process. The adjacency effects are on display, particularly visible in the subject's forehead and hair. I think Rodinal gave this photograph a gritty character, which is what I wanted.

House remodeling contractor by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[aparat]

I finished analyzing the Multitone RC paper. Overall, I found it to be very good, though inferior to Ilford's current offering in terms of Dmin and Dmax. The marketing literature promises five grades, and I found there to be, possibly, seven distinct grades using Ilford's under the lens filters. At B&H, it sells for about half the price of Ilford MGV RC (for a 100-sheet box of 8x10), and, to me, that's a great deal. The blacks can be enhanced with selenium toning, and the whites are bright enough to offer the "sparkle" that a lot of people like.

Here are the plots:

Sensitone RC Glossy Paper Curve Family by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

Sensitone RC Glossy Paper Grades by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[MattKing]

The blacks can be enhanced with selenium toning

I'm assuming you actually tested this - how responsive to toning is it?

 

[aparat]

I'm assuming you actually tested this - how responsive to toning is it?

Yes. In terms of Dmax, selenium toning (1+9 for 6 minutes) changes Dmax from 1.86 to 2.16. That, in my opinion, is quite respectable. In terms of the actual color change, it's subtle, about as subtle as Ilford, but more pronounced than Arista Edu Ultra VCFB. I haven't tested the RC variant of Arista.

I still need to make more prints to give a more informed opinion, but, so far, I find the paper better than I anticipated.

Does anyone happen to know who makes it?

 

[aparat]

I should also add that the current Ilford MGV RC Glossy selenium toned Dmax is around 2.24 (from 2.14 untoned). The difference between 2.16 (Multitone) and 2.24 (Ilford) is unlikely to be perceptible by most people, except maybe for some eagle-eyed photographers.

So, Multitone gains an entire stop of density with selenium toning. I would consider that being responsive. Now that I had a chance to examine the prints more closely, side-by-side, in daylight, to my eye, Multitone has a more dark-chocolatey cast, compared to Ilford, but the difference is subtle. Of course, all of that may be different, depending on one's process. I am just reporting on what I found in my own work.

 

[redbandit]

I should also add that the current Ilford MGV RC Glossy selenium toned Dmax is around 2.24 (from 2.14 untoned). The difference between 2.16 (Multitone) and 2.24 (Ilford) is unlikely to be perceptible by most people, except maybe for some eagle-eyed photographers.

So, Multitone gains an entire stop of density with selenium toning. I would consider that being responsive. Now that I had a chance to examine the prints more closely, side-by-side, in daylight, to my eye, Multitone has a more dark-chocolatey cast, compared to Ilford, but the difference is subtle. Of course, all of that may be different, depending on one's process. I am just reporting on what I found in my own work.

What is your process though... for developing it? Whats your developer?

 

[aparat]

What is your process though... for developing it? Whats your developer?

I am using D-72 (a home-brew Dektol) or Kodak Dektol. My standard development time for the Multitone RC paper is 2 minutes with constant agitation.

 

[Molli]

I discovered an unopened 100-sheet box of Oriental VCFBII paper and a 25-sheet box of Arista Edu Ultra VCFB paper, which I probably bought around 2016. I tested the papers and made a couple of prints. This was quite a fortuitous discovery, as film and paper prices continue to climb. I am glad that I have enough of both to keep me going through the end of the year.

Here's a print I made on the Arista paper the other night, toned in selenium toner 1+9 for six minutes. It required a pre-flash exposure to give some tone to the sky. The sun was behind the subject, which made this rather tricky to print due to extreme brightness range. The reflective jacket added an additional challenge.

Portrait of a stranger in a cool reflective jacket by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

I also bought a box of the affordable B&H Multitone RC paper, thus using up my photography budget for 2023. I have just tested the paper and will post my analysis later. I scanned the following selenium-toned Multitone print in with VueScan without any manipulation beyond the default settings, and Color Balance set to None, and Sharpen Filter to None. I find that these settings give me a scan that is fairly close to what the print looks like, except for the banding artifacts and random smudges and dust specks. I processed this negative in Rodinal for 60 minutes, using semi-stand agitation. I was experimenting. This is not my usual process. The adjacency effects are on display, particularly visible in the subject's forehead and hair. I think Rodinal gave this photograph a gritty character, which is what I wanted.

House remodeling contractor by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

It's been very motivating for me to follow along your trek back into the darkroom and, while I deeply appreciate all of the technical details and charts you've posted, can we all just take a step back and admire your beautiful handiwork?
I went and looked at the entire series on Flickr and love them! Your engagement with your subjects shines through - I'm rather terrified of people and your photographs of the people around your town actually make me think that I'd enjoy sitting down for a coffee with one and all. Have any of them seen the prints you've made? I bet they and their families would be chuffed to see (have?) them. I'm also guessing that every single one of them would tell you that battling through your frustrations has well and truly paid off.
Really lovely results from all of your time and care.

 

[aparat]

@Molli Thank you very much for the kind and insightful comments! I am still struggling in my darkroom, but making progress. My biggest problem is a feeling of claustrophobia in my small space. I never used to suffer from claustrophobia before, so I am not sure what the problem is. It makes me feel impatient and rushed. It's a strange feeling.

The portraits I take are always with permissions, and whenever the person wants the picture, I always oblige. Usually, people just want me to text them the photograph, but I have also sent people prints. I enjoy the interaction very much. I always learn something new. The other day, I took a portrait of a retired deep sea diver, who had endured several serious accidents working on oil rigs. His stories were fascinating.

 

[Craig]

I find darkroom work is a zen sort of thing, I have to be in the right mindset to have a successful session. It many ways I find it similar to target shooting, you need to leave the worries of the day at the door of the range/darkroom otherwise it shows in your targets/prints. In some ways that relaxation and mind clearing exercise before you begin is the most important part of a session.

 

[aparat]

I think that @Craig has a point here - working in the darkroom is a kind of zen-like experience, at least to me.

I have a couple of images that I want to share. The first one is a professionally made and edited scan of a 6x6 HP5 Plus negative, the other, a home-made scan of an 8x10 silver gelatin print I made on Oriental VCFBII paper. Why am I showing these two photographs? Well, once again, I learned that scanning and printing are two very different processes, resulting in two very different media. I was shocked at how great this scan turned out. It's super clean, super detailed, and so easy share and have it printed, which is still pretty easy and affordable. Having professional scans made often is out of the question for me, as it's very pricey. However, if there was a reliable, affordable, multi-format film scanner on the market (like a modern version of the CoolScan 9000 ED), I would be very tempted to take up the hybrid workflow. For now, I will continue printing in the darkroom.

Scanned negative:
professionalScan by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

Silver gelatin print scan:
Man wearing a hat by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The first one is a professionally made and edited scan

The edits include removing a stick from the lawn and taking a faint line out of the wall (well, the line does look like a scratch on the negative).

It looks like they added more toe to the 'print' - hard to do in the darkroom. But a 1/2 grade increase in contrast and a quarter stop less exposure (both WAG) would go a long way to getting the two results closer to each other.

 

[Kino]

I say it's apples and oranges; a print is an image conveyed by reflected light and a scan is and image conveyed by transmitted light.

Different parameters apply for each medium in how it's produced, viewed and evaluated. It may be an representation of the same negative, but the mediums diverge enough as to make the two subjectively an entirely different viewing experience.

I highly doubt your scan of the print does justice to it if you viewed in a proper lighting environment. How would your scan look under the same lighting conditions?

Even "no adjustment" scans are intrinsically a lie; the act of digitizing the image deconstructs and then reassembles the constituent parts within a color space that is only referenced to the original values relative to the limitations of it's parameters.

Of course, that's what a print does too; remap the values of the negative to the density/color space of the paper.

So, IMHO, neither is inherently superior outside of their intended domain.

 

[aparat]

The edits include removing a stick from the lawn and taking a faint line out of the wall (well, the line does look like a scratch on the negative).

It looks like they added more toe to the 'print' - hard to do in the darkroom. But a 1/2 grade increase in contrast and a quarter stop less exposure (both WAG) would go a long way to getting the two results closer to each other.

Wow, I didn't even notice those blemishes. They really did a great job. I made the print before I received the scan, so I wasn't trying to match it, but thank you for the advice. I will re-print it next time I have a chance and post the result. I never took up digital photography, except for one camera I had in the early 2000s, but it broke relatively soon after the warranty ran out. Now that I am old(er), I find the prospect of the ease of dealing with digital images enticing.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I find the prospect of the ease of dealing with digital images enticing.

Yeah, but everything really worth doing is hard; though just because it is hard to do doesn't make it worthwhile.

As to the "blemishes" - they weren't, it looks like they were there in reality. They got retouched out, like a woman's hairy mole. You would think they could have swept the sidewalk at the bottom right. (Insert smiley as needed, I can't bring myself to use them.)

 

[MattKing]

So, as time has progressed, how frustrated are you now?

 

[aparat]

@MattKing Yes! I am still frustrated and still make stupid mistakes, but I have benefited from the collective Photrio wisdom and I am having a much easier and more pleasant time making prints.

 

[aparat]

The edits include removing a stick from the lawn and taking a faint line out of the wall (well, the line does look like a scratch on the negative).

It looks like they added more toe to the 'print' - hard to do in the darkroom.

This comment really intrigued me. My digital editing skills are very basic, so please forgive me if I am asking the wrong question, but is that what you mean by adding more toe?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

This comment really intrigued me. My digital editing skills are very basic, so please forgive me if I am asking the wrong question, but is that what you mean by adding more toe?

Less highlight contrast, which will as a side effect lighten the highlights - the curve control point would be in the upper right. On the negative that part of the curve would be the shoulder - the denser part of the negative. That lost contrast has to be moved somewhere so the midtone or shadow contrast would increase unless you unpegged the black or white point. I try to stay away from tone control in B&W Photoshop. I find it easier in the darkroom, somehow, as there is less control and thus less to drive me batty.

Thinking more about it, one way to get the same effect would be by controlling the lighting when the photo was taken by bouncing light to the subject's face and shirt. Photoflex (?) make little collapsible light reflectors - the same job can be done by those sunscreens for use behind a car's windshield. Also dodging the face shadow and shirt would work. A dodging mask gives fine control in Photoshop.

Making a print that is 0.2 stops or so lighter might make get the silver print close to the scanned result all on its own.

Whatever technique your scanning firm used they did a very good job of it.

I'm not a Photoshop maven, far from it, so don't put too much weight in my words.