Fat Man and Little Boy Ride Again

[terri]

Chris, it does look flat. I looked at your processing and noticed you mentioned 60M. What grade was that supposed to give with this paper? I think additional contrast would brighten up this image considerably, and maybe shave off some exposure time or tighten that aperture to lighten up the whole print.

I'm quite ignorant of enlargers outside of the Besler 23C and my own ancient Super Chromega D. I can fumblingly use the filter holder in the former but really love the ease of dialing in filtration in the latter. Does your Fujimoto use filter holders? Would love to see another print at about Grade 3, especially with that lovely Oriental Seagull you have! That paper still enjoys a great reputation.

That image could really snap - unless, of course, this low-key quality is exactly what you were after. Also, we viewers have to account for scanning; it could be the print looks quite different than what is onscreen.

My two cents.

 

[christopher walrath]

Flat subject. But I love the low tones. I was thinking of halting development in 10% increments to see if the highlights (dry surface of stones) improves. This is only a working print. This was following test strips and an intuitive leap employing some dodging from right to left over the last 6 seconds of exposure. Definitely want to bring up the highlights a bit. Might even see if filters can do anything.

Going to fiddle with it another time. But the shadows are where I want them for certain. And this is a project to be tackled another day. My old fixer settled and leaves sediment everywhere so I dumped that out. Didn't even try it for the prints. Just doubled time in the stop and added an increased water rinse with constant replenishing of the water with clean water.

God, I really missed this. Good to be back.

 

[christopher walrath]

Terri, an increase of aperture size could help with the contrast. But that might make my dodging tough with such a short exposure time. Will have to try that as well. The 60M was the enlarger model, Fujimoto Lucky 60M. Cheap old enlarger that has served me very well over the last few years.

 

[christopher walrath]

Oh, and that is not my setup now. That was five or six years ago when I was stuck doing my magic in the downstairs, under-the-stairway, half bath.

 

[terri]

Flat subject. But I love the low tones. I was thinking of halting development in 10% increments to see if the highlights (dry surface of stones) improves. This is only a working print. This was following test strips and an intuitive leap employing some dodging from right to left over the last 6 seconds of exposure. Definitely want to bring up the highlights a bit. Might even see if filters can do anything.

Going to fiddle with it another time. But the shadows are where I want them for certain. And this is a project to be tackled another day. My old fixer settled and leaves sediment everywhere so I dumped that out. Didn't even try it for the prints. Just doubled time in the stop and added an increased water rinse with constant replenishing of the water with clean water.

God, I really missed this. Good to be back.

eek, well I totally misread 60M, didn't I? I'd a' done swore that meant magenta! At least I was smart enough to add the disclaimer of general enlarger ignorance outside what I learned on, and my own. I'm also a bit of a high-contrast brat, so I have to study long and hard when viewing low tone images. I've no doubt the things that you're already considering will help the highlights, and that might be all she needs.

I bet you did miss it. After long absences, when I'm back under the lights I'm mentally kicking myself for not making time sooner. It does suck when life gets in the way.

 

[christopher walrath]

Stones v2.0

Just got out of the darkroom. Letting the prints dry so I can scan. Nailed it.

I tried a #3 Ilford Contrast filter which placed the highlights where I wanted them and the burned in the right side and the bulk of the bottom left corner. Will add the scan shortly.

 

[christopher walrath]

Waited until I was done. Wow, rum and coke kinda gets you quick.

 

[christopher walrath]

Now, this is the final print to date. Mind you, it still looks kind of flat but the highlights are higher. I used a water rinse as I am out of fixer. The print is not archival until I can get some Kodafix and make some good prints. But the water rinse was enough for me to see my progress.

Technical gobbledygook:
Shot with a Nikon N65 in 2008 on Fuji Neopan Acros, processed in HC110 Dil 'B'.
Printed on Little Boy. Height - 18.5". F/11 for 22 seconds with 6 seconds each burning in of right edge and left lower corner.
Orient Seagull VC/RC-II 8x10 glossy paper and I used a #3 Ilford Contrast filter.
Souped in Ilford Multi Paper Dev at 1:9 for 1 minute.

 

[terri]

Wow, rum and coke kinda gets you quick.

We all learn the hard way that being drunk in the darkroom doesn't work - such a drag, when it always seems like such a good idea at the time!

Wow, I like this one much better. Agreed the highlights are lifted, and to the betterment of the image. A lot more texture coming through from those rocks!

 

[gsgary]

I was still happy when PS and printers came along, though ...

I have to agree. While I miss film and the DR, I don't know if I would ever go back to wet printing. I think negs and scanning are the way to go. A hybrid of both worlds. Once a neg or print is scanned, it's now digital anyway. My hats off to the full blown darkroom people. Many years of a lot of fun, but if I can have my man cave with the smell of hypo and play with my film gear, I'd be a happy guy.

Wet prints all the way, I made 4 5x7 prints last night for the pub in go in got a bit of a display going on

 

[christopher walrath]

And don't worry. Imbibing occurred post-hanging.

 

[timor]

Now, this is the final print to date. Mind you, it still looks kind of flat but the highlights are higher. I used a water rinse as I am out of fixer. The print is not archival until I can get some Kodafix and make some good prints. But the water rinse was enough for me to see my progress.

Technical gobbledygook:
Shot with a Nikon N65 in 2008 on Fuji Neopan Acros, processed in HC110 Dil 'B'.
Printed on Little Boy. Height - 18.5". F/11 for 22 seconds with 6 seconds each burning in of right edge and left lower corner.
Orient Seagull VC/RC-II 8x10 glossy paper and I used a #3 Ilford Contrast filter.
Souped in Ilford Multi Paper Dev at 1:9 for 1 minute.

Him, my problem is, this is a scan from the print and might not fully show the properties of the print. To me the print is still very muted in tonality. Oriental Seagull vc is more on the cold side of neutral papers, the print should be crispier with deeper blacks. The real question is (as I do not remember) how cotrollable this paper is, but judging from the developing time it contain a lot of developing agents in emulsion. Nevertheless, if this is the best you can get right now try this: get some TSP from painters shop. Yes, it is a degreaser, very alkaline, make a concentrate and start to add it in 20 ml increments to your developer tray. At some point you will start to notice substantial difference. You may, for the kicks, even develop your print in pure tsp, that will show, how much metol is embedded in Seagull emulsion.

 

[christopher walrath]

That I might just give a try.

But first things first. I want to get some fix and process this the way it should be done. The water rinse allowed me to see progress from change to change but there is no perminence in the prints. Could even have increased exposure in the short time from the darkroom to the scanner.

 

[timor]

That I might just give a try.

But first things first. I want to get some fix and process this the way it should be done. The water rinse allowed me to see progress from change to change but there is no perminence in the prints. Could even have increased exposure in the short time from the darkroom to the scanner.

That might be very well the problem with muted values.