The next level...

[Wmcgowin]

Hello all-

OK, here's my story. I used to shoot and develop 35mm some 25 years ago or so. Had a Rollei 35 that I loved.

Recently I got back into photography-about a year ago. Got a Canon A-1. Then I recently moved into medium format, with my Bronica ETRSi. Set up my own darkroom with a Beseler 23CII & a couple of nice lenses (Componon-the good ones).

I have shot Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Arcos 100 almost exclusively, and developed with D-76. Use Ilford MGIV RC and FB, developing it all in Dektol. (I was trained with Kodak chemicals, and sort of stuck with them. But I do remember using Rodinal some and just ordered a bottle from J&C.)

While I like my photos, and even love some of them, I still feel that they are missing something. In particular, I don't see the richness of tones that others have in the gallery shots. I read what others do, and wonder if I am using "beginner" film, paper, and chemicals. So I ordered some Efke film, and am thinking about whether I need to change paper and chemicals.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Will Efke film (or something similar) make a difference? Also, should I look at different paper or chemicals?

This is awfully open ended, I know. But people love to give their opinions, so...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Many fine photographs have been made with Delta 100, Acros 100, D-76, and Ilford MGIV RC and FB. I don't think it's the materials. Efke 100 is a beautiful film, and it is available in many unusual formats, but it's not necessarily "better" than what you're using, and the same is true for Rodinal.

Maybe it's a good time to take a fine printing workshop. Hands-on experience learning how to produce good negatives, refine your printing technique, seeing what a good negative looks like and how fine prints look wet and dry and how they get that way, and to get some feedback from a good instructor might be just the thing to move to the "next level."

 

[BBarlow690]

Get a good print that has those rich tones, and condemn it to your darkroom. It's your reference. Brooks Jensen is selling his for $25 on his web site, and he's a fine craftsman, even though they're digital prints. Find an image you won't tire of.

Then, start trying things one-at-a-time. Film speed. Negative development time. Paper contrast grade. Paper exposure. Dry down.

Film speed and development time are easiest - you should be able to get those out of the way in a day or two. Then you'll have them forever, or at least until you change film or developer. Dry down is a simple test, and I'll tell you that for most papers it's 10 percent.

After that, as you print, there are only two questions:

- Is it too light or too dark?
- Does it have too much or too little contrast?

Hold your work next to your reference print in the darkroom and answer each of those in turn. Based on your answer, make a better print, then keep asking the question until it's the best you can do and holds up against the reference. I find the "too light" question may mean adjusting print exposure by one second in a 25 second exposure. Try it. You'll see a difference. On the contrast grade question, I once printed a portrait where 1/8th of a paper grade made all the difference! I had my wife look and verify that I wasn't completely nuts, and she agreed with me.

Plan to spend a lot of time, and a lot of paper, but it will sharpen your eye immeasurably. The materials you describe are fine. You need to work to sharpen your eye and hone your technique. Then, if you want, you should experiment with different materials. There are differences in materials, but they're very subtle and less than what better techniques will give you right now.

And remember, you can't guess. You must make the prints and see how they look. You've got to keep at it until it's right. Don't be lazy!

All best,

Bruce Barlow
www.finefocusworkshops.com

 

[reellis67]

I agree with Bruce's post %100. I just went to a show of Clyde Butcher's work and was blown away by the difference between my shots and his - I'm headed back this weekend to pick up one of his prints to use as inspiration. It really helps seeing, in person, the work of a skillful photographer. Every time I see a print in person I am blown away by the difference between what I am looking at and what shows up on a computer screen; there is no comparison.

I expose a lot of paper on the negatives that I really like, and I think that I've made great strides so far, but I'm still not where I want to be. I've found that going to see someone elses work as a reference is an invaluable tool for improvement - having an example right there in the darkroom would be even better. Brooks's prints are %20 right now ($16). I'm not sure if you have to be a subscriber to get that price or not, but I would get one either way.

- Randy

 

[dylder]

I agree with everything said above. I suggest also taking a class.

I was disappointed with many of my prints. I took a course this spring at the local community college. The teacher was really good about giving an honest critique of the print quality and would make suggestions on improvement (burning, dodging, contrast, exposure...). He would take the time to explain the why behind his suggestions too. My prints are so much better now than they were just a few months ago.

dw

 

[Simon R Galley]

If you are just getting back into it, if it may help PM me your address and I will send you the ILFORD MULTIGRADE printing manual

Simon / ILFORD Photo

 

[Claire Senft]

I think an important issue is the way the negative, developer and paper act in concert to give you the richness of tonality that you like.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Dry down is a simple test, and I'll tell you that for most papers it's 10 percent.

The best thing I ever did when I changed from R.C paper to Fibre paper was testing for dry down factor. My printing improved and my highlights definately glow now.

I do not want to rain on anyones parade, but I feel that when testing for drydown is mentioned, the importance of the relationship between your viewing lamp and the percentage of drydown is never stressed enough. I followed the test procedure in les McLeans book and my test prints were still too dark after drydown allowance of -10 and -12%. like Bruce and many others, Les's book states that dry down is about -8 to -12% on most papers. I am using Ilford MG4 in their own developer and have the drydown factor on my R.H.Designs timer set at -20%, though I used to use -21% with no problems, no loss of fine detail in glowing highlights.

This does not mean that Les, Bruce and others are wrong, or that I am right, it probably means that my inspection lamp is too bright and/or too near to the paper (60watt daylight bulb about 80cm above the print holding tray)

What I am trying to say is, I am in agreement with everyone else, you are already using fine materials, look at how you are using them. I like to let everyone else do the testing but some times it pays to do your own. Like me, it could be something as simple as changing a light bulb.

.

Don't be lazy!

As Bruce said! Dont be, your prints will improve.

Regards

Stoo

 

[Wmcgowin]

Great advice everyone. And I think I have gotten a little lazy. In my attempt to print more I might rush things a little, and skip some steps-rushing times in development trays, not doing test strips as often, etc.

OK-stupid question. What is dry down?

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Great advice everyone. And I think I have gotten a little lazy. In my attempt to print more I might rush things a little, and skip some steps-rushing times in development trays, not doing test strips as often, etc.

OK-stupid question. What is dry down?

If you don't know, its not a stupid question!

How many times have you viewed a wet print in the darkroom and said "thats it, perfect" and put it away to dry. Then the next day looked at it with utter disappointment because its too dark, no shadow detail and dull lifeless highlights. Thats caused by drydown.

Use the search button top right and pump in the word 'drydown' and you will find it crops up many times. It will be explainsd in full so I won't bore you with the details.

Good Luck

Stoo

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Les McLean has a good article on drydown in the "Articles" section.

 

[dancqu]

I think an important issue is the way the negative,
developer and paper act in concert to give you the
richness of tonality that you like.

Act II.
Wasn't it A. Adams who referred to it as "The Print" Dan

 

[jovo]

Lots of good advice above, however, I would suggest you consider as reference prints the "Collector prints" offered by Photo Techniques magazine ( www.phototechmag.com/collector.htm ). The ones offered in the current issue by Dick Dokas (May/June 2006) are silver gelatin prints made on Ilford MG FB paper. They are NOT inkjet prints, and are far more faithful to the kind of results you seem to be looking for. They are priced at US $85 each. (PT also currently offers inkjet prints by Michael Reichmann, but they're not the reference prints that will best inform your search I think.)

Disclaimer: I have no financial or other interest in Photo Techniques Magazine (I am not even a subscriber), and I have great respect for Brooks Jensen and his work both digital and otherwise.

 

[sunnyroller]

I believe I remember reading something a few days after the conference that Les McLean was going to have example prints for darkroom comparison available for about $25. Of course, I could have been drinking and only imagined I read that piece of information. I am sure someone in the know will chime in and either confirm or deny that bit of information.

Good luck,

Sunny

 

[Gary Holliday]

There is lots of good advice here. I often preach to my students that printing is a major influence in the quality of the final photograph. I would bring a selection of prints to show the vast range of differences that the choice of paper and lighting techniques can have on a photograph.

When I first read your choices of materials, they appeared rather generic to me. There is obviously nothing wrong with any of your choices, but think about what you are trying to achieve. Then choose the right lighting, film and paper/ dev combination for your subject.

If I want bold, I'll shoot in strong sunlight, with a low ISO film, grade 3 glossy paper. If I want subtle, it's a smooth film, soft light, grade 2 on textured art paper.

I have different film & paper combinations, but Efke 25 Agfa APX 25 are favourites.

 

[nworth]

I am in the very painful position of relearning black and white. I did black and white for many years, but lately it's been mostly color negatives. I decided to shoot black and white again, and the experience was a shock. Although my technical knowledge is still there and is still accurate, I found I could not expose and process black and white worth a darn. At first I overdeveloped and got very bad negatives. I made corrections (mostly less agitation, but also somewhat shorter development times), and now I have that pretty well under control. But I am still underexposing a bit. Corrections and tests (when I use large format) are under way. In short, black and white is very sensitive to small changes in exposure and processing technique. You often don't notice them until you get to comparing prints. It takes a fair amount of practice and experiment to get them right (and if you get out of practice, you will loose it for a while). You have the right idea. You are looking carefully at the results and deciding on the changes you need. Keep at it.

I don't think there is any magic film to improve your results. Pick one you like, and refine your technique with it. (Although technique carries over to other films to a fair extent.) My current favorite is Kodak 400TX. It is quite forgiving and produces great images. But Ilford FP4+, Kodak 100TMY, and others are also great.

 

[BBarlow690]

Yes! I agree with the above! Pick materials and stay with them! As the APUG-banned Steve Simmons says: "Don't join the Film-Of-The-Month Club." He's right. I used Tri-X forever, then tested FP-4, HP-5 and Bergger 200 head-to-head, each with their "preferred" developers, and with my preferred developer. Conclusion: not enough of a difference to change, and Tri-X has the advantage of higher speed (HP5 tested at ISO 250 for me, Tri-X is 400). I use only Tri-X to keep it simple.

Ilford Multigrade is fine paper. They're all fine papers - I tested many of them head-to-head. Use ONE paper until you're sure you've exhausted all its possibilities and you need something else. To do otherwise distracts you from photography.

Remember, Edward Weston never paid more than $5 for a lens. But he rarely had to use a second piece of paper to get a finished print, and I wish my prints could even share the same planet with his...

It ain't the materials. It's the person in front of the enlarger.

Good luck! You'll get there!

Bruce Barlow
www.finefocusworkshops.com

 

[JamesG]

"As the APUG-banned Steve Simmons"



I must have missed this one... what happened here?

James

 

[reellis67]

In the beginning, I tried a lot of combinations, but I found that my resluts improved much more reliably when I stuck to only FP4+ / Rodnal and HP5+ / Perceptol. I found the look that I like, and I found that I was able to predict much more accurately the results. I do use other film/developers on occassion, but I do so knowing that I want some specific result.

- Randy

 

[John Bragg]

www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml
Found this very informative on getting that "Certain look" in prints.
Regards, John.

 

[FrankB]

Excellent advice from all quarters. I think taking a workshop with someone good is probably your fastest track to seeing an improvement. See also this excellent article - Confessions of a recovering magic bullet chaser

Let us know how you get on!

All the best,

Frank

 

[Wmcgowin]

Thanks again-all good advice.

I have taken a couple of courses at the local university. The teacher is pretty good, but I tend to be above the others in the class. I am not bragging, it's just that even in the upper level course, the other students are dealing with fairly basic issues. So he can't really give me (or anyone else in the class) the sort of input I think I need.

Maybe I can find a workshop somewhere.

 

[Donald Miller]

Hello all-

OK, here's my story. I used to shoot and develop 35mm some 25 years ago or so. Had a Rollei 35 that I loved.

Recently I got back into photography-about a year ago. Got a Canon A-1. Then I recently moved into medium format, with my Bronica ETRSi. Set up my own darkroom with a Beseler 23CII & a couple of nice lenses (Componon-the good ones).

I have shot Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Arcos 100 almost exclusively, and developed with D-76. Use Ilford MGIV RC and FB, developing it all in Dektol. (I was trained with Kodak chemicals, and sort of stuck with them. But I do remember using Rodinal some and just ordered a bottle from J&C.)

While I like my photos, and even love some of them, I still feel that they are missing something. In particular, I don't see the richness of tones that others have in the gallery shots. I read what others do, and wonder if I am using "beginner" film, paper, and chemicals. So I ordered some Efke film, and am thinking about whether I need to change paper and chemicals.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Will Efke film (or something similar) make a difference? Also, should I look at different paper or chemicals?

This is awfully open ended, I know. But people love to give their opinions, so...

I agree with what others have said. It's awfully difficult to gain an inner reference of what our prints can be without a beginning reference point. Fred Picker, while alive, said that he learned to print with an Ansel Adams print at his elbow.

Learning to recognize what it can be is only the beginning that is where a workshop may be helpful in learning how to arrive at the result.

Good luck.

 

[Claire Senft]

You know Mr. Miller I am very much in agreement wuth your statement about how much a person can learn from viewing a well made print.

I have a sugesstion for you Donald. You website shows nothing but very fine photos. If you have one that requires nothing more than straight printing it might be worth your while to produce a number of copies to sell to Apug members at say $25.00+ postage. Just tell where to mail my money.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've been thinking about this lately, too. At the moment I'm less and less interested in ultimate technical quality, and more and more interested in composition, the use of light and emotional impact. I don't think my pictures are 'better' when I use 35mm, roll-film or large format; they're best when I'm using a camera I'm happy with and photographing something that interests me.

Then again, you need to be rerasonably confident about producing adequate technical quality, so this isn't a very helpful attitude for the beginner.

But all this could change tomorrow and I could be back on a 5x7 inch kick...

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)