Some of my latest prints

[Compaq]

The only thing I've done with these, is scan, rotate, crop away white border and save Sorry, but I can't remember which of these come from which negative :/ I remember developing a TMax 400-->1600 for 12:30 minutes (I think), one Delta 400 (shot at 400) for 8:30 and one Delta 3200-->3200 for 10:30.

Printing notes are in the darkroom, in my archive :/

1

Opsangersvatnet by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

2

Bøker, Oslo by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

3

Anders på traktor by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

Hope you partly enjoyed

 

[Compaq]

On my monitor, they come out much brighter than the prints actually are, especially nos. 1 and 3.

 

[terri]

Okay, good to know - I was going to comment on that. Scanning can be challenging for me, as well! If there is detail in the mid section of #1, it might still benefit from a little more burning in. The foreground and sky look nice. No real issues with the 2nd or 3rd that couldn't be the fault of the scanning. A little boost in contrast wouldn't hurt any of them, but again it could be the scan!

You've come a LONG way, that much is evident. Good job.

 

[Compaq]

There is a little more detail in the middle ground in no. 1, yes, but I suppose I could have burned in more.

I had a problem when I printed these. I mixed new chemicals. My developer is Ilford Multigrade 1+4 (I mixed 700 mL). I used f/11 on the enlarger. My paper size is 13x18 cm, and I almost filled the paper with my image. I tried exposing from 20-5 seconds, dividing the paper in four test strips. And the entire paper was almost black. Even at 5 seconds it was at least two stops under exposed.

It wasn't like this the last time I was there. Then I could easily expose for up to 15 seconds - which gives a little time to do some basic dodging. I ended up diluting my developer to 1200 mL, which gave me "normal" results at 10-5 seconds exposure.

The magenta filter was at 0 (zero) for all the test strips, I even threw away my first batch of developer as I thought maybe I'd done a dilution mistake - I hadn't! The paper has not been exposed to any light. The only thing I could think of that differed from the last time I was there, were the negatives I was enlarging. I switched to some negatives of another character, and they also came out very, very dark! I don't understand it!

 

[smithdan]

Ilford multigrade at 1:4 is pretty strong. The bottle gives instructions at 1:9 and 1:14 so diluting your 1:4 to double would get you close to 1:8 or so. I usually expose at f11 as well but no comparison there as my enlarger is an oldie to mach the rest of the collection. Paper I'm using is comparable, Kentmere (ILford) MG no filter. The exposure times with fairly ideally exposed negs, was a bit short for my liking at 1:9 and even at 1:14 the image lept off the paper with no time to do any warm finger stuff and the like. This whole thing is new again to me as my Darkroom and camera collection was in a box for over 10 years and now I'm limited in materials choices. Have been using a scanner for negs lately. Like your shots. NIce tonal range in the second one, hard to spot subtle stuff on a monitor at least the one on a laptop, so can see some midground detail if I play with the hinge. Used to go through lots of paper trying to get ones like this right.

 

[timor]

I had a problem when I printed these. I mixed new chemicals. My developer is Ilford Multigrade 1+4 (I mixed 700 mL). I used f/11 on the enlarger. My paper size is 13x18 cm, and I almost filled the paper with my image. I tried exposing from 20-5 seconds, dividing the paper in four test strips. And the entire paper was almost black. Even at 5 seconds it was at least two stops under exposed.

???! Slow down Anders, read this again. Your paper was black everywhere and you are talking of under exposure ? 5 sec, 13cm x 18cm (roughly 5x7) F11 ? Black means it is overexposed. What paper are you using ? Most RC papers have own developer in emulsion so the concentration of a developer in the tray is not that important. In any case doing 20 - 5 sec exp. strip is an overkill. Get this:
ILFORD PHOTO - EM10 Exposure Monitor
or maybe this:
Delta 1 Projection Print Calculator Scale 4x5" 12610 B&H
That will help you cut down the frustration. EM10 looks flimsy but with some experience where to mesure you will narrow your test strip to 3 seconds span, not 60.
I would like to see yours negs on the light table.

I missed that 1:4 mix ratio for Multigrade. I use Dektol 1:3 thus the slip. Yes, 1:4 is too much.

 

[ann]

also, magenta at zero means no contrast. and since these prints are from scans and have contrast I wonder what the negatives look like. We really need to see the negatives

Black paper means it has been exposed, white would indicate little if no exposure.

 

[terri]

mmm, yeah, I have to agree with what's being said here. The initial exposure strip/test strip/step wedge is just to give you an idea of a starting point. I was taught an extreme measure like this, my teacher did these numerous, tiny sections on a strip of paper with 5-second intervals. It was puzzling to me as a newbie and I could barely make out exposure differences. I take a very relaxed approach to this now, using either 10-15 second exposure differences on a strip, and usually only 4 exposures. I get where I need to be pretty quickly for decent test prints, and can take it from there.

I've never seen this EM10 device, so I can't comment if it's really helpful or not.

 

[timor]

I've never seen this EM10 device,

Nothing special, just simple spot meter for enlarger, no computer, no memory, not even any specific scale only a dial divided in equal parts. It has to be calibrated by experience for each setup. Won't give you the only correct exposure but it will narrow it down to 3-5 sec. Saves on doing the first test strip.

 

[Compaq]

Ilford multigrade at 1:4 is pretty strong. The bottle gives instructions at 1:9 and 1:14 (...)

Maaaaaaan, have I read it wrong???? I'm sure it said 1+4 on the front of the bottle, and I even checked the information on it. I'm dead sure it said 1+4...but I guess I must have used 1+9 earlier. Maybe I should try 1+14 next time just to buy me some burn/dodge time.

How stupid a mistake is this I suppose it had to happen at some point, though.

I had a problem when I printed these. I mixed new chemicals. My developer is Ilford Multigrade 1+4 (I mixed 700 mL). I used f/11 on the enlarger. My paper size is 13x18 cm, and I almost filled the paper with my image. I tried exposing from 20-5 seconds, dividing the paper in four test strips. And the entire paper was almost black. Even at 5 seconds it was at least two stops under exposed.

???! Slow down Anders, read this again. Your paper was black everywhere and you are talking of under exposure ? 5 sec, 13cm x 18cm (roughly 5x7) F11 ? Black means it is overexposed. What paper are you using ? Most RC papers have own developer in emulsion so the concentration of a developer in the tray is not that important. In any case doing 20 - 5 sec exp. strip is an overkill. Get this:
ILFORD PHOTO - EM10 Exposure Monitor
or maybe this:
Delta 1 Projection Print Calculator Scale 4x5" 12610 B&H
That will help you cut down the frustration. EM10 looks flimsy but with some experience where to mesure you will narrow your test strip to 3 seconds span, not 60.
I would like to see yours negs on the light table.

I missed that 1:4 mix ratio for Multigrade. I use Dektol 1:3 thus the slip. Yes, 1:4 is too much.

Okay, so that may be wrong. But it was dark! And the most logical thing to me was that it was under exposed. But of course, it's backwards in the darkroom Thanks for clearing it out, maybe I'll remember it once and for all, now!

also, magenta at zero means no contrast. and since these prints are from scans and have contrast I wonder what the negatives look like. We really need to see the negatives

Black paper means it has been exposed, white would indicate little if no exposure.

Maybe I should have specified it more clearly, but I only did the test strips with zero contrast. Once I diluted the developer, and was able to get at least some control over the development, I adjusted the magenta filter to around 30-50, depending on the negative.

 

[timor]

Compaq:Okay, so that may be wrong. But it was dark! And the most logical thing to me was that it was under exposed. But of course, it's backwards in the darkroom Thanks for clearing it out, maybe I'll remember it once and for all, now!
Hey mate ! Sorry if I sounded like an a##$%@l. That was not the intention.
Well, it looks like you are thinking "digitally" in the darkroom. Sure enough underexposed digital capture will show itself dark on the display. In classic photography we have actually two exposures to produce an image, both could be under- or over- exposed. In "under" we mean that not enough silver halide was turned into silver, in "over" too much. Here is the problem, when you said underexposed I applied it automatically to paper, but in fact you meant the negative. The negative not dens enough, that even only 5 sec. exposure under the enlarger is producing totally overexposed print. That's why I (ans Ann to) wanted to see the neg, to see, haw bad it is.
If you find sometimes, that you have not enough time to dodge the print closing the aperture is one solution. You can also use weaker light source or, if your enlarger let you, you can block the light using neutral density filter over your contrast filter. Cokin filters are not that expensive for that purpose.
BTW. VC papers used without any contrast filtration have about #2 (normal) contrast.

 

[Compaq]

Where would such a filter be inserted in a colour enlarger with built in filters? I've never opened up this thing, looked at the lens with my own eyes or even sensed the light source in other ways than that it fired when i hit some buttons I wouldn't be able to change a light bulb or the lens, should any break.

You did not sound like an anus, I was merely flabbergasted of myself

It seems I haven't made the switch to film completely yet

 

[timor]

Where would such a filter be inserted in a colour enlarger with built in filters?

That might be a problem if there is no easy way of inserting in light path. What enlarger do you have ?

It seems I haven't made the switch to film completely yet

That is not needed to switch thinking , tread film photography as something completely different. Only the lenses are common for both, past that nothing is the same.

 

[ann]

with a color head you don't need filters, just dial in either yellow or magenta to specifics grades you need. You don't use the cyan dial. Try about 30 magenta for about a grade 3 filter.

 

[timor]

No ann, the question was how to slow down exposition of paper in order to have time for dodging. I usually do that using ND filters above my contrast filter in D3 condenser house, but how to do that in enlarger without any filter drawer.