Silver gelatin prints little too dark or little too light

[cliveh]

Experience of printing should not require a test of dry down effect.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I like that one too. "An truly experienced photographer will be wise enough to examine the entrails of an owl prior to every darkroom session,
and thus know every possible variable in advance, without having to ever look at the end result."

 

[Xmas]

Hi there,

To darken a print you can use Fotospeed Chromium Intensifer and to lighten a print you can use Fotospeed Farmers Reducer – both of which are sold by Fotoimpex. You can also easily mix these up from raw chemicals which you can buy from Saban Suvatlar Fototechnik, Simrockstraße 178a, 22589 Hamburg. 040/395709 | Fotosuvatlar@live.de (I last bought stocks for my two-bath developer from them a couple of years ago, so, if they are no longer in business contact Wolfgang Moersch). Neither of these chemical treatments should be part of your regular workflow but, rather, as a way of saving a print when money is an issue.

The important thing is to get your prints correct for the intended viewing environment. I never look at my prints in daylight because they are never seen in daylight. They are either shown in an exhibition (with gallery lighting), displayed in our home during our annual open studio (with 100W lighting) or in the homes of purchasers (generally with 40W lighting). A long time ago I went around a number of galleries (not museums as they have pathetically low 'conservation' lighting which is the result of them using tungsten/halogen spot lighting that is detrimental to framed photographs / watercolours framed behind glass) and friends houses to meter the average lighting.

In my darkroom I have a strip light which, when a dry print is placed directly under the light on the viewing table, is the equivalent of the average gallery lighting. When a dry print is viewed by the entrance door, this is the equivalent of the average lighting in people's homes. These two viewing environments are what I use to judge dry prints.

The most important piece of kit in my darkroom is a microwave oven for drying fibre-based test strips for viewing in the appropriate viewing environment (i.e. either for exhibition / display during our open studios or for a purchaser to display in their home).

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

Sir you come from fairy tale land Im reminded of the story of the girl lost in the forest who finds a little cottage and upon opening the door finds three plates on the table...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I too have no idea of what is meant by "average" gallery or domestic lighting. The mere existence of a color temp meter and luminance meter
in my portable display kit tells me something is unrealistic about that kind of categorization. And if I was still doing architectural color consultation like I did in younger years, I'd probably also add a handheld spectrophotometer to that kit. Some galleries are absolute horror
stories when it comes to lighting - even the big bad wolf would run out of there before the halogens caught his fur on fire!

 

[David Allen]

Sir you come from fairy tale land Im reminded of the story of the girl lost in the forest who finds a little cottage and upon opening the door finds three plates on the table...

Dear Xmas, thank you for your enlightening comment that I am sure will really help the OP with solving his problem - surely the aim of this forum is to share, to the best of our individual abilities, our knowledge so that the OP can progress with his/her photography.

Which part of my comments suggests that I come from Fairy Land?

• That the OP can not darken a print by using an intensifier?
• That the OP can not lighten a print by employing Farmer's Reducer?
• That you need to be aware of the lighting where your photographs are to be displayed to accurately judge how dark / light your prints need to be?

I too have no idea of what is meant by "average" gallery or domestic lighting. The mere existence of a color temp meter and luminance meter in my portable display kit tells me something is unrealistic about that kind of categorization. And if I was still doing architectural color consultation like I did in younger years, I'd probably also add a handheld spectrophotometer to that kit. Some galleries are absolute horror stories when it comes to lighting - even the big bad wolf would run out of there before the halogens caught his fur on fire!

Hi Drew, as I explained in my post, the 'averages' that I was referring to are the result of me personally metering a number of galleries and domestic environments of people who have bought my photographs. Of course every single environment is different is terms of illumination levels, colour of the bulbs, distance of the prints from the light source, colour of the glass used in frames, etc, etc. However, unless one can print specifically for each of these environments (too expensive and time consuming for me) then some form of standardisation is necessary. Without this, the only opportunity for showing our work with confidence that they are tonally exactly how we want to present them is to show them in the darkrooms where they were made! As this is, for me, both impractical and undesirable, I have sought to achieve some standardisation as I explained in my reply to the OP.

Over the years I have observed that:

• Viewing prints in daylight is unnecessary because I never display them in daylight but rather in galleries and in people's homes.
• The lighting in galleries averages 3.5 - 5 times brighter than that in the average domestic environment.
• Detail in the darker shadows is disproportionately affected by the available light (detail in the darker shadows is lost as the lighting gets darker).

As I prefer my prints to look contrasty but with detail in the dark shadows, the lighting where the photographs are displayed has a very large impact on how dark the lower shadows need to be printed to look 'correct' in that particular environment. The lighting on the viewing table in my darkroom represents an average of the brighter lighting found in galleries (here in Berlin this ranges from bright white daylight strip lights, traditional spotlights and halogen lighting). Prints that look 'correct' on the viewing table are acceptable across the various galleries that I have exhibited / visited but, of course, I have to accept some variation but the principle works well. The other viewing position is significantly darker and represents an average of domestic lighting (which I have found has become darker since the advent of energy saving light bulbs).

Put simply, prints intended for exhibition are unacceptably dark (can't see any shadow detail) in a domestic environment and prints sold and made for a domestic environment appear too light, thin or washed out in a gallery environment.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

 

[pentaxuser]

What is happening on APUG? Is it the "post Christmas Blues" taking over? David Allen has given some perfectly reasonable advice to the OP for which he has been thanked and yet it has brought responses which might lead him to stop contributing which would be a great pity.

I was watching a recording of "Gunfight at OK Corral" last night. A fine film but I don't want its sentiment to infect APUG

Time to lighten up a little, I think

pentaxuser

 

[erikg]

It's a tricky problem sometimes. It took me a while to get my print viewing light to the right brightness and distance to work most of the time. Sometimes you end up fooling yourself into over or under estimating the change from wet to dry.
I'll throw this into the mix, if your print will end up hanging in an art museum (not a commercial gallery) it will get about 6 foot candles of light on it. Sometimes less, rarely more. This is standard practice at most accredited institutions. It's the ultimate victory of the conservator over the artist. I work at a museum so I know this first hand.

 

[Bob Carnie]

The ignore feature is wonderful, In the last year have used this function more than the previous 9 years I have been here.

I too thought Davids post was very good in fact as a printer for others , I have found that mixed lighting in various areas of my lab help me show work.
The worst place to show ones prints is under dim fluorecent lighting areas.

The variable lighting conditions is one of the main reasons why I always print three variations on any image.

What is happening on APUG? Is it the "post Christmas Blues" taking over? David Allen has given some perfectly reasonable advice to the OP for which he has been thanked and yet it has brought responses which might lead him to stop contributing which would be a great pity.

I was watching a recording of "Gunfight at OK Corral" last night. A fine film but I don't want its sentiment to infect APUG

Time to lighten up a little, I think

pentaxuser