What does this image need?

[RalphLambrecht]

dear bvy,
i don't think this print needs anything special, just the standard procedure:
1. Set your enlarger to a normal filtration(grade 2).
2. Add just the exposure to get a hint of tonality in the highlights(zoneVIII-IX).
3. Increase contrast to get true black in deep shadows(under the table?).
4. Adjust exposure due to contrast increase.
5. done!

 

[koja]

To be honest if I shot this image I would say it falls to the category of trash bin images. No offense please!
Sometimes the conditions are so difficult that you can't get away with a decent picture. I would just learn for the future (be it dynamic range of the film or contrast taming development techniques) and go shoot some more.

 

[Worker 11811]

To be honest if I shot this image I would say it falls to the category of trash bin images.

While I agree with your point, I wouldn't be so quick to toss this image into the bin for two reasons.

First, working with less-than-ideal images is instructive. You learn the limits of the camera, the film and darkroom printing. Understanding this makes it easier for you to make a better image next time. Basically, we learn from our mistakes.

Second, negative that we think are trash on one day can be made into good pictures on another day, in other ways.

Many years ago, I took a photo on the subway platform at Kendall Station in Boston (Cambridge) Mass.
It was dark. The shutter speed was low. The aperture was wide open. The picture was dark and blurry. When I took the photo, I gave it a quick look and thought, "Trash."
Twenty years later, I was going through my old negatives and I happened to look at this image again. It caught my eye so I scanned it and looked at it on the computer screen.
Turns out... If I changed the way I look at the picture, I was able to make something out of it! If I had trashed that picture, I never would have had the opportunity to make a good image out of it.

So, the way I see it, go ahead and work on the image you have. See what you can do with it. Maybe you'll make something good out of it. Maybe you won't but you will have learned something in the process. Then, put it in a notebook and file it away. Maybe, years from now, you'll look at that picture with a fresh eye and see something you missed before.

 

[litody]

> Will this really increase contrast beyond grade 5

You don't reach grade 5 with dichroitic filters. I guess maximal filtering PLUS grade 5 filter + longer development gets one grade more than dichroitc filter alone. But this depends strongly on the paper. FOMA ist softer than MCC, for instance.

The key word is FILTER. That is what filters do, they filter out light and if all the green light has been filtered out by one filter, adding a second filter to try and filter out some more green light will make zero difference except increase print time due to added filter density.
The question is whether all the green light has been filtered out by one dichroic filter. Possibly not but it really depends on your particular enlarger so adding a second filter may have an effect but not nearly as much as you might at first think.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ralph gives what I strongly suspect is a comprehensive answer in five short easy to understand lines. This might just explain why his book is so good.

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

To be honest if I shot this image I would say it falls to the category of trash bin images. No offense please!
Sometimes the conditions are so difficult that you can't get away with a decent picture. I would just learn for the future (be it dynamic range of the film or contrast taming development techniques) and go shoot some more.

While I would not go so far as to say trash this image, as it may be one that is important to you and needs to be rescued. koja has a valid point. Exposing the negative correctly and then giving it correct development for the type of enlarger you are using, (i.e. condenser or diffuser) means that you only need show the negative to the enlarger to produce a good print. Extensive time spent in producing consistently good negs (and I can’t do it all the time) ensures simplistic printing.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

The white highlight is fine. To get the shadows not to look muddy, contrast need to be increased. This will throw off the exposure so readjust for proper whites.

 

[bvy]

Thanks everyone. I know it's a tricky negative to work with, but I have no intention of relegating it to the trash bin. Worst case, I can always scan and manipulate it, though I'm finding that more and more ungratifying lately. And if I get nothing good in terms of a print, the learning gained from the experience has been invaluable.

I made a few adjustments. First of all, I think my developer was pooped, so I mixed a fresh batch. I used a grade 5 filter under the lens (7 seconds) and burned in some highlights with a grade 00 filter (4 seconds). This is what I've come up with. There's still no true black in the image -- multiple attempts turned the background to mud. But I managed to get a lot closer and still retain some shadow detail.

 

[eddie]

Huge improvement. The contrast is much better.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This not correct for all enlargers. Some can do it easily such as my Durst L1200

exactly!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yep, you done good. Any you have learned a lot.