Printing with High Grade Issues

[Shaggysk8]

Hello,

Here is my problem, I tend to print on Grade 3 to start with which gives me an ok image, then I get my time right, then end up printing on an even higher grade to get an image I like the look of.

So I was looking at some Ansel prints and felt he got good contrast in his images but it didn't look like he printed them at a high grade where you tend to get the grain artefacts (if you know what I mean).

So it got me thinking I need to change the way I print, so should I be dodging and burning more but say keep to grade 3, this would then give me control over whites and blacks.

Just some of your thoughts would be welcome.

Paul

 

[Anscojohn]

Have you standardized your film exposure and film development so your negs print properly on a Nr. 3 paper with the type of light source in your enlarger?

 

[Shaggysk8]

When you say properly what do you mean?

What I have done it expose with a spot meter, then I developed adjusted my agitation and time until I got a lot of detail on my negs, nothing is measured scientifically but I do have detail where I need it.

 

[per volquartz]

Get Fred Picker's book "Zone VI Workshop"!
It is out of print but is by far the best book ever written about standardizing film exposure / development times so they correlate to printing on a #2 paper...

Try Abebooks.com
It should only cost you a few $.


Per Volquartz


Dead Link Removed

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Get Fred Picker's book "Zone VI Workshop"!
It is out of print but is by far the best book ever written about standardizing film exposure / development times so they correlate to printing on a #2 paper...Dead Link Removed

I will second this recommendation. I purchased an original hardcover copy when it was first published. Still have it. It's an absolute gem of common sense procedures and explanations.

It's virtually impossible to *not* comprehend what each process is and why you are performing it.

Ken

 

[Anscojohn]

When you say properly what do you mean?

What I have done it expose with a spot meter, then I developed adjusted my agitation and time until I got a lot of detail on my negs, nothing is measured scientifically but I do have detail where I need it.

*************
One adjusts ones exposure and development for the target paper grade-- the light source of your enlarger can affect this. Are you using a condensor or a diffusion system? If you are not getting enough contrast for a three paper, then you need to increase your film development so it prints properly on a two paper.

 

[Shaggysk8]

It is a diffusion system, I feel it maybe be my exposure/development, I have order that book and also at the weekend I was going to adjust my box speed from 400 to 200 develop as normal and go from there, I feel a little silly not knowing

Paul

 

[jerry lebens]

I think Anscojohn is on the right track, it sounds more like a exposure/development problem than a printing problem.

In trying to make your negatives print on a specific grade of paper, you're kind of putting the cart before the horse. A certain amount of work can be done towards creating negs that will print to a specific grade - as in Anscojohn's suggestion - but, in specifying a grade without calibrating your approach to the negative, you are limiting your options somewhat... Ansel Adams didn't achieve fantastic contrast effects by printing on high grade paper, he created a negative that conformed to the characteristics of a given paper, squeezing out it's full tonal response.

It's hard to tell precisely where your problem lies but, from the information you give, I think you need to consolidate your exposure/development regime. When you've got that down pat you'll find it easier to produce prints with a wide contrast range on lower grades of paper, in effect maximising your prints tonal range.

Regards
Jerry

 

[Ronald Moravec]

You need to calibrate the film development to the enlarger/light source and the grade paper you wish to work on. I really recommend #2 paper. Either type of enlarger makes little difference and a properly made print will be almost the same. If it were a stand alone, you will not see the difference in enlargers.

First rule. Exposure in camera controls the amount of detail in the darkest tones, ie shadow detail. Development time changes almost nothing.

Second rule. Time in developer controls the highlight density in the negative or the whites in the print.

These are two golden rules that are never wrong.

Load the camera with your favorite film. Find a repeatable full tone subject with detailed blacks and detailed whites, ie they have texture like rubber care tires and a stucco wall painted white. A cross lighted white stucco house with black shutters is ideal.

Expose 6 frames bracketing exposure from -2 stops to +2. Develope the film per manufactures directions.
If you camera shutter and lens stops & meter are calibrated properly, the -2 will have no detail in the blacks, properly exposed frame will have some, and the + 2 will be over overexposed . Find the one with proper shadow detail and this is your film speed, ie box is 100 and +1 looks good, then your EI is 50.

Now print the frame and print on the proper paper and get the blacks the correct density ignoring everything else. Now look at the whites. If they are too white and devoid of detail, you development time is too long. If they are grey, then you need to develope longer.

Go back under similar light, expose 6 more frames using the new EI, develope 10% longer if whites were grey, 10% less if they had no detail using fresh new developer. Print at the same time as the original and you should be closer to a perfect print. Repeat as necessary to zero the process in.

6 exposures is 12 inches of film plus leader. That is all you need. 36 makes no difference in times.

Similar toned subjects in the same light will print for you the same as your test did.

Do not keep print developer diluted more than 8 hours or the second test will be invalid. It may look not quite right, but you will not realize what is wrong and you will be spinning your wheels. Even if you store in a full cover container, it is no good. There is no way to save it.

RC paper is fine. Do final tests on FB if that is what you standardise on for final display prints.

 

[Shaggysk8]

Ok I have done a Zone I film test, at 400, 200, 100 now Mr. Picker says I need a densitometer to find the neg that is .08 or .10 above fb to find my film speed, so as I do not have one of these is there another way to do it?

Lets say I put in a blank neg find a time to print max black, then put in each neg and compare results?

Paul

 

[paul_c5x4]

Lets say I put in a blank neg find a time to print max black, then put in each neg and compare results?

When I started down the path of the zone system, I found much of it be high-falutin' mumbo-jumbo... That is until I came across the writings of Barry Thornton - His articles on development & personal film speed kinda made sense of this zone system. If you read his stuff, you'll find you don't need a densitometer, just a notebook and a little time under the enlarger.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Nothing has improved my printing more than Ansel Adams' and Phil Davis' books, a few workshops with Howard Bond and John Sexton, a lot of practise and the use of a densitometer. Not that you need one to print better, I just needed one to understand better what's happening with film and paper development. We all have different ways of learning, collecting meaningful data and sticking to a strick regime is mine.

To address the OP's question. Yes, AA got the contrast mainly by selective and obsessive dodging and burning. The paper grade gives you global contrast, dodging and burning gives you local contrast. A good print has both. Of course, AA worked without VC papers, which makes things a bit easier and offers more creative flexibility.

 

[eddie]

You say you have a spotmeter. I've read about using one instead of a densitometer.

 

[Shaggysk8]

I did also read that, a 1/3 drop would give you .10 but I was not sure how good this would be

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You say you have a spotmeter. I've read about using one instead of a densitometer.

You'll find instructions in Phil Davis' book 'Beyond the Zone System' how to turn a spotmeter into a densitometer. Also, some darkroom meters can be used as transmission densitometers for negatives or have built-in functions to do so. In any case, you may be better off finding a used densitometer for a reasonable price.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I did also read that, a 1/3 drop would give you .10 but I was not sure how good this would be

1 stop doubles or halves the exposure. In either case, you multiply or divide by a factor of '2'. The log of '2' is very close to a value of '0.3'. Density is measured in log values. Hence, measuring a 1/3 stop difference in exposure amounts to a density difference of 0.1 log units.