*My first prints were anything but good.

harald · 2005-02-14T20:34:08+00:00

Hallo Leute. Wenn das eine (Negativ) klappt, muss es das andere (Papierbild) noch lange nicht! Das zum ersten Probieren verwendete ORWO-Papier (10x14cm) wa...

harald

Hi everyone. Just because the first part (the negative) works, that doesn’t mean the second part (the printed image) will necessarily turn out right! The ORWO paper (10x14cm) I used for my first attempt was almost completely blacked out at first, even with a series of exposures of 5 seconds each; it took further testing, stopping down the aperture significantly and using a 5-second exposure to finally produce a more or less acceptable image. However, that still seemed very short to me. Then I thought I’d try the new Forte Multigrad paper. I tested various exposures and gradients; the result was usable. But then I wanted to try a cropped enlargement on the same paper with the same gradient; I didn’t manage that. It came out completely flat; grade 2, 27 seconds and f/11 still produced an image that was far too bright and flat. What am I doing wrong? Many thanks for your replies. Regards, Harald.

uworischki

1. Do you have very thin negatives? – If so, the exposure times will be very short. 2. Does your enlarger have a so-called density lever? If so, you can switch in a sort of neutral density filter, which reduces the exposure by about 1–2 stops. 3. What film format are you enlarging? With 10x14 paper, you’re pretty close – that naturally results in very short exposure times, unless you’re using Minox negatives.

Gast

Hello, Harald! Five seconds for such a small image isn’t unusually short. Of course, the exposure time also depends on the format, the density of your negatives and the light source used in the enlarger. It is also not unusual for the gradation ratios to change with cropped enlargements – and, of course, the exposure time, which can be calculated from the ratio of the initial enlargement to the final size. The distribution of brightness and contrast values within a detail can be significantly different from that in the full image; furthermore, the altered light scatter plays a role, and the whole thing is related to the chosen enlargement scale. Best regards Holger

Gast

Well, Harald.... There are so many different factors in the process that influence the result... it’s really hard to say anything for certain... I started out with DUKA at some point too and had the same / similar problems... maybe this will help you... it was always my fault. Why don’t you check the following: 1.) The camera’s light meter Is it working properly? Does it measure correctly? 2.) Your shooting technique Are you measuring correctly? Even with autofocus, the light meter has to be used properly! 3.) The film Was it still OK? Was the ISO number correctly transferred to the exposure settings? 4.) Film development

Gast

Exposed too quickly... 4.) Film development Was the developer also a negative developer? Was it still fresh? Was it mixed correctly? Did you use the correct development times...... So, we’ve just developed the film... haven’t stopped and fixed it yet... As you can see, we haven’t got to the printing stage yet, but you’ve already had countless variables to adjust.. Tip. Exposure, development and printing of a new roll of film; if you like, I’d be happy to help you further via email.... Regards Maik

harald

Hi Maik, I’m certainly not infallible, but I think everything is within the normal range until the film is fully developed. I exposed the first two rolls using an EOS 300 and an EOS 30 respectively, just as I had done with hundreds of colour films before – mostly on automatic, but sometimes with manual settings. The developer was freshly prepared; the rest of the equipment is fine as far as I can tell. I’ll be taking a closer look at this again this coming weekend. I’d be happy to get back to you regarding your offer of help. However, I need to gain a bit more experience first – including some negative experiences – so that I can ask you a few specific questions. My first impression is still too superficial. See you soon. Best regards, Harald.

Urnes

Hi Harald, Don’t worry about it. We’ve all started out like this, more or less. With 10x15 prints, short exposure times of 5 seconds are normal. That said, the effort involved is the same whether you’re printing small or large images. Why not try making a series of exposures? Take a picture, for example, at gradients 0–5 and see how the image changes. Always let the image undergo full development. That usually takes 1 or 2 minutes, depending on the paper, developer and temperature. Place the image face down in the developer so you aren’t tempted to take it out of the developer early. If it doesn’t match your vision for the image, vary the time. If the times are too short for the small formats, perhaps simply swap the bulb in the enlarger for a weaker one or use larger formats. Don’t skimp on materials; it won’t pay off in the long run. We’ve all had to learn the hard way. Take notes and try to make the results reproducible. With the Canon in automatic mode, assuming normal contrast and no large white or black areas, you should actually be spot on between grade 2 and 3. Look at the images in daylight. That’s your benchmark. If you think they’re not quite right yet, then do them again. As a rule, the images darken by 10–15% as they dry. Regards, Sven.