This is not good rsrs.
Don't be so judging.
Originally Posted by tkamiya
My questions may look silly at first sight but making silly questions you may learn some details about things you presume you know very well.
I have learned a lot and something more about what I already knew with my silly questions. And believe me, presuming some answers are too obvious to be asked or thought you may lose the opportunity to learn some details that can make a good practical difference.
Those who think they know enough don't evolve.
So don't be judging. If you what to know if I have try other papers and for how many prints I have done with them, just ask me. So you can give me better advises. :)
tkamiya's not a judgmental person, so that's not what he meant at all.
Originally Posted by marciofs
I think he's saying you can get more experience on the same budget using less expensive paper. You can work faster, take more chances and try everything. Then you will make good use of better paper, some point in the future of your journey.
I personally recommend always using the best paper. Once I used expired/old paper and the fog made me think I was terrible. It shattered my confidence. Since then I always print on the best paper and have been very happy about that decision.
I agree with those who suggest making test strips on the paper you wish to make the final print on. While small pieces to make a test strip will only show a portion of an enlargement somewhere along the line you will have to make a full size print and probably see something to improve/correct and need to make at least another print. I didn't notice the mention of dry down which varies from paper to paper so it might save you paper to fully process and view the dry print even if it means reprinting another day. You could consider scanning your negatives for a larger view so you can pick out the ones worth printing and get some idea as to areas that may need burning, dodging or split-grade contrast printing. Even making test prints on a less costly paper before deciding on using an exhibition quality paper. There really are no shortcuts to making an exhibition worthy image. of course starting with the best negative possible helps.
I would also agree that making test strips with the same paper you use to make the final print is a good idea. You may also try three test strips at a time to sample the bightest highlight, a midtone and the darkest shadow. I have seen many times people making test strips and when making the final print they suddenly find a white blob in some part of the image they didn't notice before. The eye quickly goes to the brightest part of the image.
Yes... usually I scan to check how the entire image looks like.
But, if instead of test strips I cut a strip on the size of the negative and make some contact prints, with different time exposure on the same strip, so I can see the whole image and check what time expesure are the best on different areas for burning and dodging? Sounds a better idea? (by the way, I print from 35mm and 6x7 frame negatives).
I made many prints on a Tetenal RC paper, because it is cheap, and I thought it was a good idea to use cheap paper just for portfolio or as simple, and I wasn't very happy with the result. And I though it was me until I try Ilford Multigrade IV fiber and I realised that the paper make a lot of difference. Cheap paper now only for contact print or to play in the darkroom.
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
I want try other papers but Ilford Art 300 is what I have on my hands now. :)
When you enlarge, flare will reduce the overall contrast, so you can't always compare a contact print to what will be a larger print.
I occasionally make reduced prints from 4x5 onto postcard paper. I have a different mentality when printing miniature. It is not easy for me to visualize dodging and burning at that size, so I wind up making straight prints.
I'm uncomfortable with the small prints, because after scanning a print to share here, it's not obvious what size the original print was. So it just looks like I was lazy and didn't use printing controls.
My solution to this problem is to make 11x14 prints most of the time. Many excellent photographers take the opposite tactic; they consider each print on its own merit and choose the appropriate size for each individual print.
I bet they look great.
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
You know, they aren't as bad as I make them out to be.
Originally Posted by cliveh
This would be a good way to conserve paper: Start making a series of 5 in x 7 in prints.
5x7 is exactly the enlarge size I have printed so far. And I like small prints because they look charming, expecially in a chunck frame.
I got 7x9 Ilford Art 300 because I didn't find on the size 5x7. I didn't start print on it yet because I still have to find largers tanks to to fit the paper in for developing, stop, fix, wash, toning. The ones I have fit exactly 5x7 papers size.
But I just thought now about to cut the paper in a half so I will have 3.5x5.5 in print size. :)