Rolf-Werner
I had to quickly make a few prints at the weekend, and I noticed the following:
?
The hard Foma seems to turn deep black quite quickly for me, but the soft version turns anthracite at best, not really black, no matter how long you expose it. As a result, the whole image looks rather grey-on-grey, and the whites don’t come out very well either (though it’s the same white when you hold it up next to it).
?
All this in Eukobrom.
?
Is it down to the Foma, the developer, or me? :-)
?
Thanks for any tips!
?
Rolf
?
MirkoBoeddecker
Have you ever tried extending the development time or just adjusting the exposure?
Is the paper a recent purchase from us?
€
Best regards,
€
Mirko
HenningH
Are we talking about fixed-grade PE? The S311 didn’t produce a normal black for me, even with a significantly longer exposure time. It was a few years ago, though.
Rolf-Werner
Yes, fixed gradation. I left it in the developer a bit longer, but there was no change. The exposure was 55 seconds; I couldn’t go any longer, otherwise the grey tones would have turned out too dark. It’s from about 10 months ago; I last used it in the spring, and that was the extent of it.
€
The black simply doesn’t have the depth you get with the hard type. I didn’t have time for further experiments, though; I had to leave in a hurry. That’s why I didn’t do a comparative test with the standard paper.
MirkoBoeddecker
The exposure was 55 seconds; any longer and the grey tones would have been too dark …
€
When it comes to Dmax, you shouldn’t overexpose an image; instead, develop a piece of paper under white light. If the black is deeper then, you have the wrong gradient. By definition, the grey tones become too dark on soft paper when a normal-contrast negative is loaded – it is soft paper, after all!
€
It may be that the Dmax of the soft-gradient paper is slightly lower than that of the hard-gradient paper. However, the paper should be >1.9, i.e. visually ‘nice and black’. €
€
Best regards, € Mirko
Rolf-Werner
I'll give that a go – it makes sense to me!
TR
It is often assumed that soft paper is too
limp or, in this context, cannot produce a true deep black. But that is not the case: the exposure was simply too short, to prevent the highlights from becoming too grey. In this situation, one is simply working with the wrong gradient or with paper that is too soft.
For every negative, there is theoretically exactly
one correct gradient or paper hardness to precisely cover the entire contrast range (‘global contrast’) with the ‘cornerstones’ of maximum black on one side and the brightest highlights on the other of a grey-scale. You must always find this gradient/paper hardness for every negative*:
?
I myself
start with the maximum black: I expose for as long as it takes for the shadows in the developed positive test print to just reach the maximum black (and this can certainly take longer with soft paper!). I then look at the highlights at precisely this exposure time and, based on them (too dark / too light), select the gradient or the paper hardness.
?
?
[size=2]*Unless you develop each negative separately (sheet film) using the "zone system".[/size]
HenningH
But if you put the paper in the developer in daylight and it’s still greyer than its ‘normal’ or ‘hard’ graded counterparts, then something’s definitely not right...
piu58
> You always have to find the right gradient / paper hardness for each negative
?
You can’t make a blanket statement like that. If you work with a softer paper than this combination, you’ll either end up with no true black or no clear white. In most cases, this will be a flaw. However, if you use a harder paper and compensate for the differences in density by dodging and burning, you’ll achieve good results. This method is often used to increase local contrast.
TR
Uwe, that’s exactly how I do it too: first, I generally use a higher exposure to maintain high local contrast (e.g. tree bark, brickwork, etc.). Then, where possible, I adjust the highlights (using Grad. 00) that would otherwise lose detail due to the higher base exposure.
It must be said, however, that my comment referred to a 1:1 copy.
Rolf-Werner
To start with: It’s true, the paper turns out just as black as the other one, so I had some underexposure. Thanks for the tip!
€
Regarding your discussion about the right grade of paper: You’d encouraged me to use variable contrast paper, and I’ve really grown to love it :)
€
I once saw a mask with individual slats that you could open and close independently of one another. I’ve already thought about making something like that myself. That should allow you to gradually increase the contrast on a test sheet.
€
Or do you just estimate it roughly at first (rather soft, rather hard, rather normal) and then proceed based on experience?
piu58
> Several test strips for shadows, highlights and contrast?
>
> Come along to my workshop at the fineartforum in Paderborn; I’ll demonstrate the process there and let the participants have a go themselves. I need one test strip for contrast and fine-tuning the exposure; a beginner might need two.
>
> It’s worth the effort. If you just want reasonably decent prints and nothing more, you can take digital photos and go to Rossmann. In your own darkroom, you should at least aim for a higher standard (it doesn’t work at first, I know).
TR
I often produce a great many test prints myself. But I’m also a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to this:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
I scan my negatives and print a ‘test print’ for each subject, on which I note down the highlights and shadows and work out a strategy.
?
A simple example: a dead tree in diffuse light in the countryside in an open field. The bark isn’t well defined by the diffuse ambient light (you’d need harsher side lighting when taking the shot). To still render this bark with ‘crisp’ definition, you therefore need a hard gradient when using the enlarger. Here, I would first estimate the gradient (e.g. 4) and place test strips always in the same spot where the darkest area is present (shadow), as this should not ‘run’.
However, with such exposure, the sky above will most likely be completely ‘blown out’ (test with test strips). You can then simply overexpose this area.
The lawn in front of the tree would also look unnatural and too harsh due to the previous hard exposure. Here, you simply add a bit of ‘softness’ with Grad. 00 or overexpose it as well, so that it does not become too dominant and the eye is gently guided to the ‘crisp’ focal point of the image, the tree stump.
I like to use Gradient 00 for re-exposure, because with this very soft gradient, you can easily extend the re-exposure into neighbouring darker areas to ensure no visible boundary or edge appears. With Grad. 00, you hardly need to worry about the shadows ‘running’. Grad. 00 initially only affects the highlights or bright areas and has a very gradual effect on the dark areas (as you’ve already noticed with the soft paper).
Rolf-Werner
> Several test strips for shadows, highlights and contrast?
€
Come along to my workshop at the fineartforum in Paderborn; I’ll demonstrate the process there and let the participants have a go themselves. I need one test strip for contrast and fine-tuning the exposure; a beginner might need two.
It’s worth the effort. If you just want reasonably decent prints, and nothing more, you can take digital photos and go to Rossmann. In your own darkroom, you should at least aim for a higher standard (it doesn’t work at first, I know).
€
I almost was, but unfortunately we had a party here that very afternoon :)
€
No, no, it works fine for me, I already know how to do it, but I wanted to know if you do it the same way, or if there are other ways to get a good picture ;)
Rolf-Werner
€
I often produce a lot of test prints myself. But I’m also a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to that:
?
?
? :lol:
?
?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ipsBlockquote">
I scan my negatives and print out a ‘test print’ for each subject, on which I note down the highlights and shadows and work out a strategy.
?
I also wanted to ask here: do you use a scanner with a transparency attachment?
?
I’ve made a contact print of each of my holiday films on “Normal”. I find it quite handy, because then you have every image just as it appears in the negative sleeve and can go through the pictures and remember, for example, what the light was like when you took them. It also gives you an immediate idea of whether it needs to be softer or harder.
?
?
A simple example: a dead tree in diffuse light in the countryside in an open field. The bark isn’t well defined by the diffuse ambient light (you’d need harsher side lighting when taking the shot). To still make this bark look ‘crisp’, you therefore need a hard gradient when using the enlarger. Here, I would first estimate the gradient (e.g. 4) and place test snippets on the very same spot where the darkest area is located (shadow), as this should not ‘run’.
?
Ah yes, that makes sense to me; I’ve got similar subjects with me too. Until now, though, I’ve tended to look for a spot where light AND dark parts of the image come together, and then take a streak to find out where the light hasn’t started to darken yet. I find your method more precise.
?
?
But with such an exposure, there’s a high probability that the sky above will be completely blown out (test with a test strip). You can then simply overexpose that area.
?
Unless that’s what you want.
?
?
The lawn in front of the tree would also look unnatural and too harsh due to the previous hard exposure. Here, you simply add a bit of ‘softness’ with Grad. 00 or re-expose it so that it doesn’t become too dominant and the eye is gently guided to the ‘crisp’ focal point of the image, the tree stump.
I like to use Gradient 00 for re-exposure, because with this very soft gradient, you can easily extend the re-exposure into neighbouring darker areas to ensure no visible boundary or edge appears. With Grad. 00, you hardly need to worry about the shadows ‘running into each other’. Grad. 00 initially only affects the highlights or bright areas and has a very gradual effect on the dark areas (which you’ve already noticed with the soft paper).
?
That makes it clearer to me how you do it. But one more question on the technique: do you make a cardboard mask for dodging? And how do you get it into the right position – swing in the red filter first, position it, hold it in place, set the timer, remove the red filter, press the timer? And how do you determine the time for the additional exposure?
?
I assume you’re using the time-corrected filter table from the paper (with Y + M)?
</blockquote>
?
[Sorry, I can’t get rid of this quote block...]
TR
Hi Rolf Werner, Yes, I use a scanner with a transparency unit. Scanning the whole roll of film into a single file serves as my contact print. I then crop the image on the computer and check whether the subject might look better mirrored. I then print the image on a standard printer, giving me a note on which I jot down details about gradients and post-exposure times:
These sheets then go into a folder.
€
Cardboard masks: Usually my hands are enough to cover certain areas during re-exposure. However, I always have some black card in the darkroom, which I otherwise cut to size or bend into shape. I don’t have a versatile tool like yours (this template), but I’d probably use it. It seems quite practical to me.
Red filter: First, I test the re-exposure or the blocking without paper. If the paper is within the frame, I naturally use the red filter first whilst the template is being positioned. Then lights out, red filter out and expose. You’d need three hands here!
€
"Time-corrected filter table for the paper (with Y + M)" When it comes to re-exposure, tables are no longer of any use to me. Here, it’s all about test strips and visual judgement. But
I’ve made myself some grey scale rulers. It works like this: I take a test strip with the base exposure time and find the shade of grey on the ruler that I want to achieve. Then I can see by how many percent (stops) I need to increase the exposure to achieve that desired tone. Once you’ve systematically got to grips with the whole exposure business, you can take quite a few shortcuts. Nevertheless, I keep remembering the words of my teacher, which initially irritated me a little: ‘For a single really good print, it’s well worth investing an entire darkroom session!’ After all, we no longer enlarge images just to quickly produce a large number of prints, but to create a few selected, unique,
fine images. Enlarging is a craft.
Rolf-Werner
A template? :unsure: Did I write that?? I’d love one too... :)
?
No, I meant exactly what you wrote, with three hands... :wacko:
?
Sure, if you want to make a really nice, big print, you naturally put in a lot of effort to make it. It’s just that I haven’t got to that point yet. So far, I’ve been doing a bit of ‘mass production’, a bit of run-of-the-mill stuff, a bit of faffing about. And above all – with growing enthusiasm – I’ve been messing about with variable-contrast paper and baryta, because I had little or no experience with either. It’s all still very much in the experimental stage.
?
I actually wanted to start building my new darkroom, but that hasn’t happened yet, so I’ve set myself up in the party room for now. It’s nice and big, but I have to wait until it’s dark outside and heat it up with the stove first. However, the oven mustn’t be burning whilst I’m working – it’s too bright – so I have to use the residual heat for about an hour, and then heat it up again for another hour.
?
To get back to the topic at hand: your greyscale rulers remind me of Ansel Adams, the way he describes choosing the right paper. However, he starts with soft paper, working from the highlights (not the completely white parts of the image, but the bright ones), and once the highlights are right, he checks whether the shadow areas need to be stronger and, if necessary, uses a harder gradient (from the same manufacturer – that’s important to him). Then he makes another test strip for the highlights and checks whether the shadows are already getting washed out. Then he tries dodging or the usual tricks (two-bath process or a mixture of Dektol and Selektol, etc.). He didn’t like using variable-contrast paper; he always managed fine without it, he writes.
?
If he needed an intermediate grade, he switched to another manufacturer whose grades were somehow in between (from Ilford to Oriental to Bleistift). However, he then ran into problems with the post-processing (toning), because the papers simply react differently.
?
Among the negatives I was struggling with last weekend, some are quite thin, i.e. lots of ‘white’ areas on the negative and low density. Others are more normal. However, using variable-contrast and fixed-gradation paper, I managed to conjure up perfectly usable images from all of them. As the negatives were all exposed with my Rollei SLX, the density was very similar within a roll of film, and I was able to print one image after another without much trial and error. Only when I’d changed the filters whilst taking the shot was a change in density noticeable, but I quickly found ‘standard values’ to work from. As I said, it was more of a mass production job, all PE, but it was perfectly fine for the purpose. I’ll make really nice prints later on, and then larger ones too, from selected subjects.
?
First of all, I wanted to get to grips with the variable-contrast paper and have a bit of a play around. Unfortunately, I didn’t get round to trying out your tip with the two gradients – by 2 am I’d run out of energy and just poured the solution down the drain B)
?
Rolf
