Okay, my future plan for analog photography

[Compaq]

I tried printing with fiber paper, and I felt it was better and easier to use. My prints are still flat, though. I think I could get better results if I opened up the aperture on the enlarger. I was at f/11 for 10 seconds, possibly 5 minutes in dev, two minutes in running water and three minutes in fix. 4 minutes in running water for wash.

It became better with time, so I'm improving. Not quite where I'm really happy with a print yet, though.

 

[terri]

Well, if you open up the aperture you will be throwing twice the light down....leading to a 5 second exposure!

How are you approaching your exposures? Are you giving yourself the benefit of a test strip? Yes, f/11 is a fine starting point, and you should only have to make adjustments if your test strip results are all overly dark or overly light - with no "happy middle" to start from.

Another guide to starting is to look at your paper's data sheet - especially to see if you get filter recommendations for the grade you're after. Assume you want to make a reasonable work print at Grade 2 - check the data sheet to see what filtration is recommended to give you that. Generally, we are using only the magenta filter to increase contrast. Apply the recommended filtration before you start your test strip process. I generally make a step wedge at 10-second intervals, and just set my timer.

In fact, to start training your eye on "grades" and what constitutes "flatness", if you get good information on the data sheet for Grades 1 through IV, give yourself an assignment. Set the suggested filtration for each grade, and make a test strip and a test print for each grade. When you spread all the prints out, you'll appreciate the huge difference between Grade I and Grade IV, and have a working knowledge of what appeals to you for your work.

If you don't have any filters for the enlarger you're using, you might want to switch to a graded paper. FB or RC is less important at this stage, just use whatever is cheapest while you're learning.

btw, a 4-minute wash for FB paper is not sufficient. If water conservation is a concern in your work area, keep using RC paper for now.

Oh, and Ilford paper has good data sheets.

Keep going! :thumbup:

 

[Derrel]

"Probably five minutes in developer" for a print? Okay...gotta' ding you on that. Print exposure time is important. Print development time is critically important. There's no need to go "five minutes" when developing a print. That amount of time could EASILY be leading to safelight fogging of the paper. Either way, it's more time than needed. TWO minutes is a more-normal time, with three full minutes being an "extended time"...but an approximate "probably five minutes" in development is bad,bad,bad! Naughty,naughty! (grins) You need to expose the print adequately on the enlarger's easel, then put the paper, FACE-DOWN, into the developer, and agitate it well, and develop it for an EXACT time, as determined by a TIMER. If you are working in a communal darkroom, like at a school or community center, a 5-minute development time is **exceedingly likely** to give you prints that are muddy, due to the way people are often doing stupid stuff, like flipping on enlargers withoiut the negative carriers, or flipping ON the enlargers to use as "light sources",etc. ALSO, as mentioned, SAFELIGHTS are not always "safe". White light contamination during long print development times is a very BIG problem in both "communal" darkrooms, as well as ad hoc ones where the light-proof nature of the work environment might be a bit suspect. And for the third time, safelight contamination MAY/MIGHT be a problem issue with such extended developing times!

If there is ONE,single thing that can help you make better prints, I honestly think that is face-down development for a PRECISE, EXACT time, and which is one within the "normal" time suggested by the manufacturer.

 

[amolitor]

Your process sounds way off in any number of dimensions. Rather than try to sort you out step by step, I'm going to suggest that you find a resource that will be complete and trustworthy. Probably a book. Not that Derrel and terri are wrong -- they're not -- just that a book is going to be complete, step-by-step, and consistent. With pictures and explanations and so on.

Any decent used book store probably has a suitable book, as does your local library, even in this day and age of newfangled digital stuff.

 

[terri]

^^ I think we've chatted about some darkroom books in another thread....IIRC. Could be misremembering that. Anders, have you ordered any or picked anything up lately?

Trying to be helpful online is meaningless without some guidance while you're actually in the darkroom, of course. Amolitor, Derrel, et al - we're all saying pretty much the same thing, which is to make sure you have all the correct tools on hand and to develop a standardized process. That's the only way to ensure systematic, repeatable results.

Anyone mentioned the Henry Horenstein books yet? The "basic B&W Photography" one isn't hard to find, look for one that says "revised" or "second" edition. I am pretty sure he goes over the darkroom set up one step at a time.

 

[Compaq]

Thanks all. I did order three books, those mentioned in the other thread. Still waiting for them. I expect most of what I should know is in there. Even though I've been failing at printing on my own, I think I have lesrned some things.

 

[terri]

Thanks all. I did order three books, those mentioned in the other thread. Still waiting for them. I expect most of what I should know is in there. Even though I've been failing at printing on my own, I think I have lesrned some things.

Don't let it hold you back - this stuff is much better learned with hands-on instruction, which you don't have. If you have some of these books on the way, you're in good shape. Make some careful notes on the enlarging setup - I actually took a peek at my Hornstein book and, yes, there are terrific step by step directions. Not as good as having someone right there with you, but you will definitely have a better roadmap.

Once you pull your first decent print, things will suddenly click and you'll be well on your way!

 

[Helen B]

I don't find extended developing to be the problem that Derrel writes about. I've said before that I think it is worth finding out for yourself, after starting with the recommended time of course. Paper, unlike film, is usually developed to finality, or close to it (ie it is developed about as far as it can be). I often develop for eight minutes, but I cover the developer tray. I started doing this after a workshop with Tom Cooper (Thomas Joshua Cooper).

 

[timor]

I often develop for eight minutes, but I cover the developer tray.

No danger of fogging ?

 

[Compaq]

Two books have come. On one of them, can't remember which, there's a pic of a print which was divided into extremely many parts with different exposures from the enlarger. I'm a little scared, tbh. Is that what it takes to make quality prints??

 

[terri]

Two books have come. On one of them, can't remember which, there's a pic of a print which was divided into extremely many parts with different exposures from the enlarger. I'm a little scared, tbh. Is that what it takes to make quality prints??

Heh. Sounds like you're looking at Larry Bartlett's work. If you ever wanted to be a master like him, then you learn print mapping. And spend the next decade or so perfecting it! He was an award-winning genius at printing. Really, that's a book to show what's possible and let you appreciate a high quality fine art B&W silver gelatin image. There is also a strong bias for multi-grade paper, without which his print mapping technique can't be done.

The beginning of the book is probably more useful to you at this stage of learning. You can certainly get a very good print without being a master printer! But looking at master works like this is akin to visiting a museum or art gallery: always, always, know what the best looks like. Find your hero! It's inspirational, educational - as well as being personally depressing. :mrgreen: What of it?

What other book did you get?

 

[timor]

I'm a little scared, tbh. Is that what it takes to make quality prints??

No, over the time experience will take you very close to the right exposure time. A small test strip would be enough. Also analyzer like from RH Designs will help.
Link here: Home

 

[terri]

I don't find extended developing to be the problem that Derrel writes about. I've said before that I think it is worth finding out for yourself, after starting with the recommended time of course. Paper, unlike film, is usually developed to finality, or close to it (ie it is developed about as far as it can be). I often develop for eight minutes, but I cover the developer tray. I started doing this after a workshop with Tom Cooper (Thomas Joshua Cooper).

Interesting. The longest I've ever gone is 3 1/2 minutes. Covering the tray is to avoid light fog?