Something of an "Aha!" moment

omaha · Feb 12, 2014

Had something of a breakthrough last night. I decided to try some variable grade printing for the first time to see if there was anything usable to be found in some of my under-developed negatives from the other night (see the stale Ilfosol 3 thread), and surprisingly, I got some halfway reasonable results.

These were both printed with about 10 seconds of exposure with the "00" filter and about 15 seconds with the "5" filter. I've got some better negatives to work with, and I'm going to see what I can do with those next.

I'm still a long, long way from getting the kind of prints that I want, but I'm starting to see some light at the end of this tunnel...

BTW...scanning really sux. These prints lose all of their "it" when you scan them.

Jeff Kubach · Feb 12, 2014

Looks like you did pretty good.

Jeff

Rudeofus · Feb 12, 2014

I can understand that a grade 5 filter helps with underdeveloped negatives, but what did you use the "00" filter for?

Hatchetman · Feb 12, 2014

Somebody here, can't remember who, argued pretty cogently that split filter printing really only made sense if you treated different portions of the print differently, ie burn/dodge with different filters.

Whatever- your prints look like they turned out just fine.

bsdunek · Feb 12, 2014

That's my understanding, but it worked here. They look pretty good. The boy is a dead ringer for one of my Grandsons - could be his double.

omaha · Feb 12, 2014

Rudeofus said:
I can understand that a grade 5 filter helps with underdeveloped negatives, but what did you use the "00" filter for?

I don't know. Just screwing around.

Does printing with a "5" and a "00" give you the same result (assuming the same exposure times for each) as printing with a "2.5"?

Hatchetman · Feb 12, 2014

This was the thread I was referring to.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

pentaxuser · Feb 12, 2014

If it were me, I think I'd be questioning how much under-development there was. The range of tones seem excellent. Maybe serious under-developed negs can be made into as good prints as these with split grade prints and if so I wouldn't be too concerned. The range of zones in the prints, especially in the dog picture looks excellent.

The "rule" seems to be that higher grades can rescue a neg but never fully establish the range of tones that a neg capable of grade 2 printing can but I'd have to say that the dog split grade 5 print looks very good.

Just as a matter of enlightenment - well for me certainly - could you try a straight grade 5 print and see if it is as good as the split grade print. The wisdom here on under-developed negs seems to be that split grade achieves nothing that a higher graded straight print s can't.

I'd be interested to see if that is the case

Thanks

pentaxuser

omaha · Feb 12, 2014

May as well give that a shot.

omaha · Feb 13, 2014

Back in the darkroom last night. I tried printing the photo of the boy with a "5" filter only. Even with a crazy-long exposure, it was nothing but black and blank. Pure black shadows and nothing anywhere else. Interesting.

I decided to take a chance and pulled up a different negative that I shot last year. I was more confident in the exposure and development on this one, and have to say, I think I'm figuring some things out here. My first prints were so "dead", and I was (mistakenly, I think) concluding that I had problems prior to printing. This result suggests to me that my negatives (or at least some of them) are just fine, and its the printing that makes the difference...an observation that agrees well with some of the comments made here.

Anyway, with this one, I wanted to darken the sky as much as I could, so I printed for 40 seconds (seemed like an agonizingly long time) with the "00" filter, while dodging out the subject. Then came back and hit it for 14 seconds with the "2.5" filter with no dodging.

I can see that I need to work on refining my dodging technique, but other than some glitches there, I'm starting to like what I'm getting here.

NedL · Feb 13, 2014

omaha said:
...BTW...scanning really sux. These prints lose all of their "it" when you scan them.

How incredibly true. My prints lose their "it" too...

40 seconds 00 does not sound like too much to me. It depends on the light in your enlarger, I suppose. Mine makes very little green light, so my 00 exposures are long compared to 05. I typically aim for about a 20 second main 00 exposure, and it would not be uncommon to go another 20 for a sky, especially to get it as dark as this one. My main 05 exposures are usually only a few seconds and very rarely more than 10. Depends on film and filters used too... a yellow filter with FP4+ can get the sky close to what I want with only a little burning.

Have fun!

ROL · Feb 13, 2014

NedL said:
How incredibly true. My prints lose their "it" too...

Not true for me – mine don't. I only scan from prints for my site, books, notecards – everything except fine art prints. The results are always quite representative of my GSPs (if disturbingly so).

Dodging around figures, such as the girl projecting into mono tonal areas such as sky, or conversely burning around her, is difficult work. While I applaud your effort and willingness to improve, such things can be impossible to do with any amount of excellence without masking. Another approach to fine tuning the photograph is to use a filter to improve contrast in the sky without harshing the girl's face, but alas the art of compromise (in exposure) is likely to be your friend in these situations. Here is where pre-visualization meets the art of the photograph.

I love my black Labs.

NedL · Feb 13, 2014

We can't discuss it here, but I too only scan prints. I admit I can't do it well, so that's okay . But my prints look a lot nicer than any scan I've ever made of them.... a sense of depth and deepness of the tones.. don't know what exactly. I think their "it" describes it well. I'm going to think of it that way from now on!!

omaha · Feb 13, 2014

I wish on that shot I had used a reflector to throw some more exposure on her face. That't the hardest part about that image.

Richard Jepsen · Feb 14, 2014

I have a slightly different take than Michael. If you are beginning, good negatives that print easy is where the focus should be. Use one camera, one film and one developer. Pick the classics like Tri-x and D-76 or Ilford's alternative. I would avoid split filtration until I could constantly get good prints using single filtration.

If you follow the above advice, you have a foundation to build on and make comparisons.

omaha · Feb 14, 2014

NedL said:
We can't discuss it here, but I too only scan prints. I admit I can't do it well, so that's okay . But my prints look a lot nicer than any scan I've ever made of them.... a sense of depth and deepness of the tones.. don't know what exactly. I think their "it" describes it well. I'm going to think of it that way from now on!!

That's what I meant.

When I scan these prints, I just slap them on the scanner and push the button. I guess it would be possible to get a less "it-sucking" scan if I tried, but I'm not particularly inclined to take the time. The whole point of this exercise for me is the analog print I already have, amateurish and beginner-ish as they may be. As long as I can get a scan that more or less reflects the particular technical issue I'm asking about, that's good enough.

I have made some large format digital prints off of drum scans of color negatives, and they turn out incredibly well, but that's a process/topic/workflow for another forum.

omaha · Feb 14, 2014

ROL said:
Here is where pre-visualization meets the art of the photograph.

I agree.

One of the things that this return to film is teaching me is to be more accurate with the exposure.

With digital, it is very easy to adjust such things in PS. With analog, it seems it is far more important to get things balanced on the negative, since correcting imbalance later is quite a bit of a challenge.

I love my black Labs.

They are awesome, aren't they?

Simon R Galley · Feb 14, 2014

Dear Omaha,

First of all you are doing just fine.

I do not know your level of darkroom experience, so please do not take this the wrong way, if you are dodging, split grade printing, or min/max printing then that is perfectly valid, but you may end up frustrating yourself especially if you are new to darkroom printing.....

As you say the neg is the thing, nothing like a correctly exposed and processed neg, that way you do not have to resort to technniques to make the image 'acceptable' to you.

In the enlarger grade 2 or 2.5 straight print, result happiness.

All the other techniques can be used to enhance and change the image for your own aesthetic.

And the more you do the better you will become.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN tcehnology Limited :

omaha · Feb 14, 2014

Many years ago (early 80's) I processed a bunch of film for my college newspaper. But it was strictly "monkey see, monkey do" work. I never knew (or really cared to know, for that matter) why we did certain things. We just did what the photo editor wrote in the instructions and left it at that. That's about it.

Something of an "Aha!" moment

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency