Just a few prints, and discussion of some troubles I'm encountering

[Compaq]

For my birthday I got a new box of paper: Ilford MGIV rc delux 9x11 in or something. I can't remember the exact dimensions, but around there, almost A4 size.

I have a negative from last fall that came out extremely good! I find that making prints from this is easy. I get max black and good highlights by choosing magenta 30. I find that I don't need any large adjustments unless my creativity takes control. But then I have negatives that are harder to print. When I go for max black, my highlights are grey. When I go for good highlights, my blacks are grey. With these, I need to either burn something or dodge something to "stretch the histogram" and get the contrast I desire.

Now, I think this all goes back to when I exposed the film. Not exposing properly and not developing accordingly could be the explanation of this. It is very annoying having such troubles with the printing stage - especially when I should be able to fix it! On my computer, a simple levels adjustment is enough to fix the histogram. Here are two examples of the "compressed histogram syndrome". The foggyness is extremely annoying! The only differences between the versions is a levels adjustment. Some of the shots are slightly cropped on the computer as well.

1

Garden by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


2

Garden + kontrast by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


3 (there is some light leak from the scanner, I think, as the hard print isn't like this. I've burned in the sky quite a bit on this one)

heidi og heidi i drøbak by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


4

heidi og heidi i drøbak + kontrast by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


As you see, adjusting the levels made a huge difference! The million dollar question is of course: How do I fix this in the darkroom? Do I print at higher magenta levels? I read about this technique where I leave the exposed paper in the developer until I see the blacks are appearing, then put it into a water bath where the blacks with further developer without any highlights emerging. Once the blacks have a "head start" I put it back into the developer and let the whites developer. To do this, I need to expose for the highlights with the enlarger, of course.
I suppose dodging and burning in could salvage some of the problems, but I'm not confident burning in skies with difficult horizons. Does anyone have any tips?

Just to compare, here are some from negatives that print very well!

5 On this I actually burned in the sky a little, but I blame that on the rather high dynamic range of the scene

Dude i oslo by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

6

Heidi på mx-stemne + kontrast by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

7

Heidi på mx-stemne 2 by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

8

mx-stemne landskap by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


In conclusion, I'm looking for tips on how to deal with the foggyness of the prints. "Increase the contrast" I hear you say. Yes, indeed, but how control this the best? Simple increase the magenta filter??

Thanks you in advance!
Anders

 

[dxqcanada]

Ok, so I assume you have read the datasheet on this paper -> http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628932591755.pdf ?

M30 is about a grade 3.

Sometimes you cannot really recover a poorly exposed/developed negative.

 

[ann]

to increase the contrast you would boost the magenta, try 45-50.

ALso, burning and dodging is a technique that is needed on almost every negative . Fever few can ever be printed without any adjustments.
That is what a master printer does very well, manipulate the image in the dark room with light, filters, and even developers.

 

[timor]

Ann is right about dodging and burning, you should expose negative with this on mind. It is riskier, but then you know how you are "stretching the histogram" (Good term...)

 

[Compaq]

I just meant that I didn't need to do anything to the print to avoid that foggy feeling. I get decent highlights and rich blacks without much effort. Would that be fixed by simply increasing the magenta filter?

How is the histogram affected by the M-filter? Does whites become whiter and blacks become blacker? That's the way it seems to me, but I'm sure I read somewhere on here that one should expose for the highlights and set the M-filter for the blacks - but that totally screwed up the highlights.

 

[bsinmich]

There will be a big difference just by enlargers. A condensor enlarger will print a normal negative on #2 paper while a diffusion one will require a #3 to give a coparable print. Since most color heads come through as diffusion the effect of #3 paper is almost normal. I always was under the impression that taking the print from the developer to water would cut the contrast. That was how I used that procedure. Reducing the exposure time and then increasing development time would also increase contrast. I have only been doing this since 1952 and can still learn. I learned the difference in contrast when I went from my old Federal 269 enlarger to the Durst 601 Condensor one. Now I have a Beseler 67C and Omega 67. I leave one set for 35 and one for 6X6. No changing of lenses or light diffusers.

 

[Compaq]

I only have access to one enlarger. I've been toying with the thought of setting up a darkroom when we get a place of our own, but that is years into the future.

 

[ann]

Then you just need to make a negative that works best with that enlarger.

 

[maris]

I read about this technique where I leave the exposed paper in the developer until I see the blacks are appearing, then put it into a water bath where the blacks with further developer without any highlights emerging. Once the blacks have a "head start" I put it back into the developer and let the whites developer. To do this, I need to expose for the highlights with the enlarger, of course.

Don't do this. Exposed paper should always be developed to completion. By eliminating paper development as a variable the resulting picture will tell you what to do on your next attempt:

Too dark - give less exposure at the enlarger.
Too light - give more exposure at the enlarger.
Too flat - add magenta.
Too contrasty - subtract magenta.

Using test strips with stepped exposures will enable you to zero in on the correct exposure time. Once the exposure time is right then make contrast changes until you like what you see.

 

[Compaq]

I think you misunderstood me, maris. What I meant was that I do my test strips and decide on a work print. If the image then needs richer blacks (and the highlights are O.K.), I can put the image in the developer until the blacks are coming out. Before the any of the midtones emerge, I transfer the paper into a water bath. In here, midtone and highlight development stop, but the blacks continue to darken a little bit. Then I transfer the paper back into the developer and let it develop completely.

I can't say it it's a very efficient way to solve the problem, though.

 

[maris]

I think you misunderstood me, maris. What I meant was that I do my test strips and decide on a work print. If the image then needs richer blacks (and the highlights are O.K.), I can put the image in the developer until the blacks are coming out. Before the any of the midtones emerge, I transfer the paper into a water bath. In here, midtone and highlight development stop, but the blacks continue to darken a little bit. Then I transfer the paper back into the developer and let it develop completely.

I can't say it it's a very efficient way to solve the problem, though.

You may be onto something with water bath development of paper but I still doubt. Photographic paper has essentially no development latitude. The manufacturer puts silver halide in the emulsion but only just enough to deliver maximum black. Extending paper development past completion does not increase black tones or built mid-tones or highlights. All that happens is subtle fogging that puts a dark layer over everything that isn't maximum black already. The difference in developing times between black, mid-tone, and highlight, is so small (seconds) that pausing the process between one step and the next by using a water bath I reckon has no practical or theoretical basis.

The alternative to developing paper to completion is to pull it out early. This is crudely and commonly known as "Snatching the Print". The result of this is weaker blacks, anaemic mid-tones, blank highlights, reduced dynamic range, and poor contrast. Several of the pictures at the front end of this thread seem to show exactly these qualities.

Over some decades of making black and white photographs in commercial, teaching, and personal contexts I found a useful stratagem is to do full development of photographic paper face down in the tray. This deflects the temptation to snatch the print if it's coming up too dark. Snatching never works. The answer is less enlarging time.

But I don't know everything. Point me to a link on water bath development of paper. I'll try anything if it works!

 

[Compaq]

Good info there. I think I read about it in a book, I'll have to check which.

As for face-down developing, this is the only way I do it - with the exception of when I'm determining the "factorial development constant" (but I don't do that enough!) These images are all developed in multigrade 1+14 for apprx two minutes. Maybe I should decrease exposure and increase development times?

I look at the fact sheet of the developer, and suggested development time for RC paper is 1:30 minutes when diluted to 1+14.