printing: high local contrast with control of overall contrast?

[36cm2]

Steve, thanks for taking the time to address my question. Your answer and the examples provided are exactly what I was seeking. I have a large waste basket and do an excellent job filling it regularly. Hopefully that will continue to occur with vastly improved rubbish. Regarding your soap box, I agree wholeheartedly regarding the Internet, but if you sift through the smoke and mirrors you find some real gems.

Many thanks for the invaluable assistance. C6h603, thanks as well. My eyes are sore with envy.

 

[Dinesh]

I just recently saw this one in person

http://steve-sherman.com/blockisland04.htm

it is so sweet it should be on the cover of something photography related, like a box of paper,

 

[mr.datsun]

After your initial grade 4 exposure you could go back and burn in your highlights in with a grade 0. I do this frequently with landscapes with overcast skies. Ignore the sky in determining overall contrast, get the foreground the correct contrast then burn the sky to desired density with grade 0. This is a variation of split-grade printing. Search the archives, there are tons of threads on this topic. It's a very valuable printing tool.

Thanks to all who replied on this thread. I've been out of action so apologies for my late replies to selective posts.

Brian, I have been using split grade printing and maybe I haven't mastered properly it but on the whole I found little advantage except that it took the guess work out of choosijg a grade. I found only marginal improvement with the split grade to the single grade. But the main disadvantage I found was producing what i considered to be predictable, some might say boring, prints.

Your suggestion sounds good but I must add that there are times (and this was one) where selecting burning is impossible. Will a grade zero burn-in reduce the local contrast in the mid tones if it has to be done globally?

 

[mr.datsun]

Have you tried a different paper? I find it much easier to get what I like on Ilford papers for my negatives and the way I print. I also find myself printing a grade lower on Ilford than Foma.

I've been using Adox MCP. I like the tonality of the paper but neither finish is to my taste so I have just bought a box of Ilford MGIV. I'll see how that goes.

 

[mr.datsun]

I'm wondering if flashing would work?

Jon

I think that this would reduce the local contrast. Also I like to print full frame negs with a large empty border. I may try this but I first i will have to make a good mask.

 

[mr.datsun]

I have for 25 years printed my work on harder contrast papers to effect just the look you speak of, good rich contrast in the mid tones. I learned through trail and error that developing the neg to a lower contrast index was the best and easiest way to achieve the look you are after.

Masks, flashing, and extensive burning are a means to an end for negs already processed. The most effective way to control global contrast is at the time of development. Further, with today's multi contrast papers these lower contrast negs produce extraordinary prints with relatively little effort.

The best way to utilize today's multi contrast papers is to use only the highest and lowest contrast light or filter at your disposal. As Brian indicated, make initial determinations and print exposure for the mid tones with the highest contrast light and then bring the highlights into range with the lower contrast light.

Steve, yes I'm going to start by reducing my dev time by 10-15% and see how that goes. I don't have access to a densitometer but will have to work it out by trial and error.

I might add that I'm using a condenser enlarger so probably need lower density overall..

So, I'm going to take yours and Brian's advice and work through the split grade printing again with my current negs.

 

[mr.datsun]

Two developers work very well with graded papers.

Two developers?

Look for a copy of "Lootens on Enlarging & Print Quality". Read it a few times and you will be amazed how much your printing will improve. Itis a very easy read and crammed with information that has been forgotten, or never learned, by most photographic printers.

Thanks I'll check it out.

 

[mr.datsun]

Try semi-stand development of your film. The acknowledged master of this technique for silver printing is Steve Sherman.

Take a look at this and this. The contrast range in this place is off the charts, yet he got good midtone microcontrast throughout the scene.

Thanks for the suggestion and my reasons may be wrong but I don't want to do stand development for two or more reasons. I understand that it will bring contrast under control when needed but it will also reduce the grain detail that i am trying to bring out with higher local contrast. Now I appreciate the results and pleasure that people get with stand development but I seem to have a theological issue with it. It seems to be a movement and I tend to move away from movements. On a more rational but still personal level I like the material nature of film and stand development seems to aim at making the film itself disappear from the deal. It's just not a look I want to get into right now.

I've even been thinking of increasing the Rodinal mix from 1+25 to 1+15.

 

[mr.datsun]

You may want to try something other than Rodinal. Rodinal gives an 'all toe/upswept' characteristic where contrast increases in the highlights.

Try a roll in D-76 and see if that produces prints more to your liking. And, as mentioned, be careful not to over develop.

Nicholas, I'm also quite tempted by what I feel to be the globby 70's look of D76 but the thing that gets me right now is the harsh clarity of the way that Rodinal seems to etch the image into the film surface. I'd like to try d76 once I've got Rodinal right.