Process to print, doubts on contrast.

[InExperience]

Dear all,

I use to print since 2014 using a method taught by my teacher based in Italy. This method is made using the Kodak project print scale cake.

I know this method is a lot approximately to calculate the correct exposition but I have good prints.

After I have seen this video of Andrea Calabresi photographer



I started to doubt my procedure.

This video explains that the contrast is decided by exposure of the strip, that the white part and black part that we decide as perfect, should be laying on the same strip.

Reading chapter 2 of Way Beyond Monochrome there is no mention of the contrast regulation, by geometric (algorithmic) time between strips we can easily choose the base time for the base print and dodging and burning if required.
Note: I didn't finish to read the book.

On The Darkroom Cookbook Anchell said to start from contact proofs of all negatives, use the same grade of contrast to start the print strips.

As you see everybody tells is method.

Can you suggest me a definitive process or book to follow to print correctly?
Now I'm using the Calabresi one with geometric timing.

Thanks.

 

[Paul Howell]

Seems like some folks are combining contrast with exposure, although more exposure darken a print it does not change contrast with is baked into the negative at time of exposure and development and the contrast of the paper you chose. Contrast is a choice, my own style is higher contrast, although I develop my negative to print on grade 2 paper, I often print at grade 3 or 3 1/2 . I recommend that you pick a well exposed negative that you got a print you like then print that negative grade 00 to 5, then do a split contrast print and decide what you like that will give some indication if you like high or low contrast. But high or low contrast, depends on the shot.

On a separate issue I have a Kodak projection sale, I seldom use it, take too paper, I use a test strip, I use 3 second increment. Once I think I have my time I print a second strip with the time I think will work, if that looks good then a working print. My strips about 2 inches wide. From the working print I will think about burning and dodging. Any be sure to let the dry before moving on, most papers with change as it drys.

 

[InExperience]

Seems like some folks are combining contrast with exposure, although more exposure darken a print it does not change contrast with is baked into the negative at time of exposure and development and the contrast of the paper you chose. Contrast is a choice, my own style is higher contrast, although I develop my negative to print on grade 2 paper, I often print at grade 3 or 3 1/2 . I recommend that you pick a well exposed negative that you got a print you like then print that negative grade 00 to 5, then do a split contrast print and decide what you like that will give some indication if you like high or low contrast. But high or low contrast, depends on the shot.

On a separate issue I have a Kodak projection sale, I seldom use it, take too paper, I use a test strip, I use 3 second increment. Once I think I have my time I print a second strip with the time I think will work, if that looks good then a working print. My strips about 2 inches wide. From the working print I will think about burning and dodging. Any be sure to let the dry before moving on, most papers with change as it drys.

Thank you for your contribute.

Otherwise Ilford couldn't sell FB paper with predefinite contrast.
For me the basic way is starting a print with the value of M= 30, grade 3, then to calculate the exposure and the other stuff.
Of course if I have high contrast on film, the value of magenta will drop down, or even using the yellow colour. Opposite if the film shows a image melted: the value of M will be around 90.

 

[MattKing]

I prefer to use a mid-contrast grade - generally 2 - and then do tests to adjust the exposure until I achieve the desired tone on a high mid-tone. Something like a Caucasian flesh tone is a good target.
I then adjust contrast to achieve good rendition of mid-tone details. I use variable contrast materials that are speed matched on those high mid-tones, so normally I don't have to do much or any adjustment of exposure for them after I have adjusted the contrast.
When necessary, I then use split contrast techniques to do localized burns in order to adjust the appearance of shadow and highlight areas.

 

[Paul Howell]

For the past 50+ years I've scaled my negatives to print grade 2, that gives me the best working print to see shadow and hight details before to I decide on what contrast I want for my final print. In the old days most papers came in a wide range of contrast, from 1 to 6, now most are only available in grade 2 and 3, and some papers are only available in VC. I understand that VC run from about grade on to 4, so a Illford filter of 5 will not yeild a true grade 6. last source of graded paper was Salvich which is not readily available here in the states. If grade 3 works for you then stick with it, if not test print a good looking print to see if a change in contrast would help it. You might also find slip printing helpful. In my case not so much, but used the right negative I think it's a good technique.

BTW, when I worked for the wire services and newspapers I usually overexposed by a stop, shooting news, error or the side of getting the image, overexposed is better than underexposed. The darkroom staff were really good at working with overexposed negatives and in those day the printing process called for a higher contrast negative.

 

[InExperience]

Thank you mates.
Maybe mine was only a doubt of middle-aged.

Then do you think to stick and learn from Way Beyond Monochrome and get rid od Kodak project print scale.
My problem is if I start to learn something from a book, I like to use it. But maybe, the better thing to do is to use the methodology that you are confident and give you best result, without trying every time new process.

 

[MattKing]

The Projection Print Scale is a great tool for determining that initial highlight exposure - just place it appropriately.
You might need to calibrate it to your paper. It might give better results with something different from a 60 second exposure.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

My procedure is as follows:

I proper-proof all my negatives by contact printing them on an approx. grade 2.5 paper.

From the proof and notes made at the time of exposure, I decide on a starting contrast setting/grade

I make a test strip in 30% intervals.

If the contrast is obviously way off at this point, I'll make another test strip at another contrast setting. When I have a test strip with the basic contrast I want, I determine a base exposure based on the highlight densities I want.

I make a straight print at that base exposure and contrast setting (maybe some obvious manipulations at this time too).

I evaluate the print to determine if I need to change contrast/exposure, etc. If the contrast needs to be changed a lot, I'll make yet another test strip. Usually, however, only small tweaks in contrast and exposure are needed at this point. So, I'll extrapolate a new exposure/contrast setting and set about adding the print manipulations I need. I'll make another print with all these incorporated. This is print no. 2 usually (print no. 3 if I have to make another test strip at another contrast).

I'll evaluate this print and make further changes in exposure, contrast and manipulations. Depending on the difficulty of the print, I usually have a finished fine print by print no 3 or 4. I'll then make another identical fine print so I have two finished prints.

Sometimes a print requires a lot of honing and I'll not reach a finished print till print no. 5 or more, but that's fairly rare these days (although there was one yesterday...) In these cases, I'll often make three finished prints.

I keep careful printing notes so I can refer to them when/if I reprint the negative.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Kodak Print Projection Scale, but for the most part it seems me to use too much paper. I have not read Way Beyond Monochrome, seems that many people use it with great results. Again test, unknown negative, print using the KPS, then using the method described in WBM and see which one fits you best.

 

[InExperience]

@Doremus Scudder thank you showing your experience. Recently, I achieve the amount of 10 prints before the final one. This is a bit frustrating either for the time and the paper wasted (i have used ilford art 300). The reason was because it has part of high light and dark part, as you can see:

The smartphone doesn't give justice, but behind her there is a wall texture.

I think after the strip test (better geometric) it's easy to find the range of time to work on. More accurate process is to a geometric print strip into the range chosen, but to cut shortly a base print of that it's fine. Considering this print for dodging and burning, this could be the final one. So in three (max four) prints we should accomplish the work.

@MattKing I read one of your past intervention where you suggest the book The Photographer's Master Printing Course by Tim Rudman, together with WBM, but to consider once at time.

 

[pentaxuser]

@Doremus Scudder

@MattKing I read one of your past intervention where you suggest the book The Photographer's Master Printing Course by Tim Rudman, together with WBM, but to consider once at time.

This is an excellent book in both the theoretical and practical sense, Well worth getting

pentaxuser

 

[InExperience]

This is an excellent book in both the theoretical and practical sense, Well worth getting

pentaxuser

Thank you confirming that, I'm going to buy on amazon.

 

[Down Under]

I have a Kodak Print Projection Scale, but for the most part it seems me to use too much paper. I have not read Way Beyond Monochrome, seems that many people use it with great results. Again test, unknown negative, print using the KPS, then using the method described in WBM and see which one fits you best.

This thing is an antique. It was usable when enlarging paper cost ten cents for an 8x10 sheet (as I'm old enough to remember) but nowadays is insanely expensive to use. Best relegated to the Eastman Kodak Museum in Rochester, New York (excellent and well worth visiting if one happens to be passing by that way) as a bygone relic.

The Ilford Enlarging Meter and the Patterson test strip maker, as I mentioned in a post in a similar thread today, are by far the cheapest options for good prints at an affordable price. In this day and age, saving money is as valuable as saving the environment. Less paper, less money, more trees saved, fresher air. Summed up in four words, win-win-win-win.

I read 'Way Beyond Monochrome' not long after the book came out, a gloriously wise book - but I then unwisely loaned it to someone who promptly vanished with it. So far I've not been able to find a copy at an affordable price. I mourn this loss. Its author, the late Barry Thornton, is greatly respected by all analogue darkroom workers for his intelligent input into the genre, notably for his superb Thornton's two bath film developer, which has now gained iconic status in film shooter circles.

 

[grain elevator]

What gizmo is going to help with a print like the one you show in #10? Each test strip needs to include part of the highlights...
I haven't adopted the practice myself yet, but I sometimes wonder if just generally printing a little dark and bleaching back isn't the way to go. Could save a lot of paper.

 

[InExperience]

@grain elevator
The photo posted is no yet bleached or tuned by selenium.
If you do a darker print and clean by bleach you are doing a flat and homogeneous work. The print is not just a replica of the reality, is also, a way to express your art.

Obviously I did the test strip print for that photo involving on the same strip high light and shadows. At the start I was wrong to find the correct contrast and exposure, because I didn't want the black shadows close back her.

 

[reddesert]

There is no single right way to make prints, only more and less efficient ways to fit things into your process.

When I was young and cheap (now I'm older and cheap), I used a Delta knockoff of the Kodak Projection Print Scale - essentially a pie chart of various neutral densities. You can still buy the Delta version new. I would cut a small test chip of paper, like 2x2", because I was cheap, and center it and the projection scale on an area of greatest interest, such as the person's face and neck in post #10, and do a test exposure. For an example like that I'd probably have to do two chips because some of the pie wedges would be mostly on light and some would be on shadow.

That would usually get me close to the right exposure and maybe give a hint of what contrast grade would be needed (I always used VC paper). I was never an efficient darkroom worker, and the small test chips would not always cover all the important parts of the image, but it was less painful than some other methods of getting to the first proof print.

 

[MattKing]

This thing is an antique. It was usable when enlarging paper cost ten cents for an 8x10 sheet (as I'm old enough to remember) but nowadays is insanely expensive to use.

I beg to differ.
Just use it with matching 4x5 sheets of paper. You get four really detailed test strips from each 8x10 sheet.
I've got a Saunders test print easel that puts four 4x5 images on a single 8x10 sheet. It permits me to use the Projection Print scale to create a contrast ring around and four test strips on the same 8x10 sheet of paper - when I so desire.

 

[grain elevator]

@grain elevator
If you do a darker print and clean by bleach you are doing a flat and homogeneous work. The print is not just a replica of the reality, is also, a way to express your art.

I don't understand this part of your reply. Flat and homogeneous? It depends on the bleach, but the most common ones start working from the highlights, so they increase contrast. And more contrast = more art??

 

[InExperience]

I don't understand this part of your reply. Flat and homogeneous? It depends on the bleach, but the most common ones start working from the highlights, so they increase contrast. And more contrast = more art??

I only said, if we follow your suggest, to do a bit darker the print and after to bleach it, it sounds like we are going to do the same process and get the same result. In this terms I used to say homogeneous.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

@Doremus Scudder thank you showing your experience. Recently, I achieve the amount of 10 prints before the final one. This is a bit frustrating either for the time and the paper wasted (i have used ilford art 300). The reason was because it has part of high light and dark part, as you can see:
...
I think after the strip test (better geometric) it's easy to find the range of time to work on. More accurate process is to a geometric print strip into the range chosen, but to cut shortly a base print of that it's fine. Considering this print for dodging and burning, this could be the final one. So in three (max four) prints we should accomplish the work.

Keep at it and you'll develop a sense for what changes need to be made more quickly. I spend much more of my time during a printing session evaluating and thinking about what changes to make than actually printing. Prints like the one you show, which need a really fine adjustment of print contrast to get the tonalities to feel right, can take more tries to get right than others. When I have a print like that, I'll often intentionally "overshoot" my goal on the second print, e.g., if the print is not contrasty enough, I'll make a very contrasty one next (after a test strip to find the highlight exposure). Then I'll have two prints, one not contrasty enough, one too contrasty, but I'll better be able to estimate where to set contrast for the third print. Working up in small incremental contrast increases ends up using up too much paper...

If you split-print using separate exposures of high and low contrast light, making an exposure-contrast ring around would be helpful for prints like this, i.e., a test print with a grid of different exposures and contrasts. I don't work that way often; I'm pretty good at getting a starting contrast that's close to what I want from evaluating my proofs and notes. For example, my proof might look a bit flat (on grade 2.5) and my notes may indicate that I wanted to print on grade 3 or higher, so I'll just start with 75M or so and go from there.

The more you turn your InExperience into Experience, the less paper you'll end up using to get to the final result. But, we all have to put in the hours, use lots of paper and pay our dues (so to speak) before we get to that place.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Paul Howell]

Don't know what format your using, but as you seem to be detailed oriented and very good eye, if you shoot sheet film you might want to read Beyond The Zone System, the later editions by Phil Davis. Although I have not taken a bite of the poisoned apple, I can see it's value, almost every variable from film, developer, paper and paper developer and toning is tested, data feed into a smart phone app and you get very consistent results.

 

[InExperience]

Keep at it and you'll develop a sense for what changes need to be made more quickly. I spend much more of my time during a printing session evaluating and thinking about what changes to make than actually printing. Prints like the one you show, which need a really fine adjustment of print contrast to get the tonalities to feel right, can take more tries to get right than others. When I have a print like that, I'll often intentionally "overshoot" my goal on the second print, e.g., if the print is not contrasty enough, I'll make a very contrasty one next (after a test strip to find the highlight exposure). Then I'll have two prints, one not contrasty enough, one too contrasty, but I'll better be able to estimate where to set contrast for the third print. Working up in small incremental contrast increases ends up using up too much paper...

If you split-print using separate exposures of high and low contrast light, making an exposure-contrast ring around would be helpful for prints like this, i.e., a test print with a grid of different exposures and contrasts. I don't work that way often; I'm pretty good at getting a starting contrast that's close to what I want from evaluating my proofs and notes. For example, my proof might look a bit flat (on grade 2.5) and my notes may indicate that I wanted to print on grade 3 or higher, so I'll just start with 75M or so and go from there.

The more you turn your InExperience into Experience, the less paper you'll end up using to get to the final result. But, we all have to put in the hours, use lots of paper and pay our dues (so to speak) before we get to that place.

Best,

Doremus

Thank you Doremus, for your opinion and tips. I don't know the split-print technic yet. I read it rapidly by web , but I need to study it. As well for the flashing or pre-flashing procedure. There is a lot to do.
Do you know that? I find more interesting to print that to take picture at this time.
Promise, I will be Experience in the future : ) You are very kind, thank you.

Don't know what format your using, but as you seem to be detailed oriented and very good eye, if you shoot sheet film you might want to read Beyond The Zone System, the later editions by Phil Davis. Although I have not taken a bite of the poisoned apple, I can see it's value, almost every variable from film, developer, paper and paper developer and toning is tested, data feed into a smart phone app and you get very consistent results.

I use my Leica M6, Summicron 50mm. I ordered from now on The Photographer's Master Printing Course by Tim Rudman, because a lot of reviews are positive, and shorter. Do you think is still used The Zone System? some Masters try to avoid it and to leave more artistic expression to the printer. By this way you don't have to put your print into a kind of cage. I will search information about your book suggested.
Thank you for your support.

 

[pentaxuser]

I read 'Way Beyond Monochrome' not long after the book came out, a gloriously wise book - but I then unwisely loaned it to someone who promptly vanished with it. So far I've not been able to find a copy at an affordable price. I mourn this loss. Its author, the late Barry Thornton, is greatly respected by all analogue darkroom workers for his intelligent input into the genre, notably for his superb Thornton's two bath film developer, which has now gained iconic status in film shooter circles.

Isn't "Way Beyond Monochrome" by joint authors, our own Ralph Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse. Is ti that one you mean or one of the two books by Barry Thornton, "Elements" and Edge of Darkness?

pentaxuser

 

[Down Under]

Isn't "Way Beyond Monochrome" by joint authors, our own Ralph Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse. Is ti that one you mean or one of the two books by Barry Thornton, "Elements" and Edge of Darkness?

pentaxuser

Yes. Just checked. You are entirely correct. My bad. I have both books and have read and enjoyed and used (and still use) them. My apologies to all and especially to the authors of this most excellent work.

Another poster has commented on using a print projection scale with a 4x5 sheet, and elaborated on his method of doing same. Also entirely correct. It's how I tend to use my Patterson test strip maker when I need particularly accurate exposures for a large print. Now and then I even commit the crime of using two 4x5 sheets on the one print. Needs must.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes Barry's books are interesting and informative but contain less information than Way Beyond Monochrome. They are smaller books for a start The latter is more like a textbook whereas Barry's book's are probably the easier books to read where information is combined with narrative.

pentaxuser