Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,707   Posts: 1,548,542   Online: 973
      
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 101
  1. #51
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,936
    Also, what you are doing with two exposures, one each through your softest and most contrasty filter, is fine, but it makes it harder to judge what's going on compared to, say, "I printed it with a grade 2 filter and the highlights are blown out and the shadows empty" or whatever. There have been careful studies on this method that concluded the results are indistinguishable from a print made with a single filter to give the same overall contrast. (I don't have a link handy, if someone cares to look it up or dispute it, fine with me *g*) Some people like it and it works for them and that's fine. I see split printing like this as just a more complicated path to the same result, though of course I will burn in areas with different filters, or even use a piece of filter material as a dodging card/wand at times.

  2. #52
    Jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post


    EDIT: Somehow I read 6 minutes but you said 6.5. That just adds to my suspicion the negatives are over developed and contrasty and you're getting muddy prints because you're compensating by using a too-soft filter to try to contain the highlights. For a printing test, try printing test prints to get the midtones looking right and let the highlights and shadows do what they may. The print may not look good but if you can get those midtones looking good that will tell you something about the problem. I'd still try going to a 5 minute developing time. That's a bit more than 20% less than your 6.5 and is also at the lower end of the manufacturer's spec.

    It also occurred to me you said you were agitating every 30 seconds but this is 4x5. What method or kind of tank are you using for your film development?
    The RC paper I have is glossy. Yes it prints better with these negatives.

    I will be doing a series if test that Thomas has given me, I do believe I over developed the film. I think you and Thomas are saying the same things and I thank you for taking the time to educate me.

    I am using dip tanks I think that's what you call them. They are square and you use metal frames to hang the negs in the chemestry. In total dakness, It's the system my friend used and it's his darkroom. He has not shot film in 10 years and is little help.

    I will do the tests and report back.
    Last edited by Jenni; 09-13-2012 at 10:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #53
    Jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Also, what you are doing with two exposures, one each through your softest and most contrasty filter, is fine, but it makes it harder to judge what's going on compared to, say, "I printed it with a grade 2 filter and the highlights are blown out and the shadows empty" or whatever. There have been careful studies on this method that concluded the results are indistinguishable from a print made with a single filter to give the same overall contrast. (I don't have a link handy, if someone cares to look it up or dispute it, fine with me *g*) Some people like it and it works for them and that's fine. I see split printing like this as just a more complicated path to the same result, though of course I will burn in areas with different filters, or even use a piece of filter material as a dodging card/wand at times.
    I did tests and found I had to add the second exposure with the 0 filter it tone down the highlights. Without it they were paper white.

  4. #54
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    The RC paper I have is glossy. Yes it prints better with these negatives.

    I will be doing a series if test that Thomas has given me, I do believe I over developed the film. I think you and Thomas are saying the same things and I thank you for taking the time to educate me.

    I am using dip tanks I think that's what you call them. They are square and you use metal frames to hang the negs in the chemestry. In total dakness, It's the system my friend used and it's his darkroom. He has not shot film in 10 years and is little help.

    I will do the tests and report back.
    Humm. Well some papers just fit some negatives better than others.

    Those are "deep tanks" used with hangars. That's what I used until I got my Jobo and I still have mine. They work fine and are pretty easy to use, even in the required darkness. Biggest limitations are the amount of chemistry required making one shot developers (like D76 1+1) impractical, or at least pretty darned expensive.

  5. #55
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    I did tests and found I had to add the second exposure with the 0 filter it tone down the highlights. Without it they were paper white.
    Well, if you exposed with a #5, then some with a #0, you get the same result as if you'd just exposed the entire print with some intermediate filter, #3 or or 3.5 or whatever. Nothing wrong with doing it either way, really.

  6. #56
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,994
    Images
    33
    After re-reading this thread, and digesting the info Jenni has offered up, I believe her problem is an under exposed and slightly over developed negative. This would stem from not factoring in bellows extension, plus shooting under tungsten(maybe) light. The film in question should be shot at half listed speed just for starters(we all agree), then added exposure is needed to allow for lighting conditions, and more exposure is needed for bellows extension when closer than infinity focus. The negative she is attempting to print will never give her the finished product she is after. It all comes down to getting proper exposure in the first place. Rule of thumb for B&W is "expose for shadow(over expose) and develope for hi-lites (under develope)".
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Well, if you exposed with a #5, then some with a #0, you get the same result as if you'd just exposed the entire print with some intermediate filter, #3 or or 3.5 or whatever. Nothing wrong with doing it either way, really.
    This is correct. Unless you are burning and dodging different parts of the image during the soft and hard grade exposures, there is no real difference between split grade printing and using single contrast filters - except technically split grade printing effectively allows for continuously variable contrast grades rather than discrete half-grade intervals. This is a subtelty though.

    Best for novice printers not to overcomplicate things.

  8. #58
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,300
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    This is correct. Unless you are burning and dodging different parts of the image during the soft and hard grade exposures, there is no real difference between split grade printing and using single contrast filters - except technically split grade printing effectively allows for continuously variable contrast grades rather than discrete half-grade intervals. This is a subtelty though.

    Best for novice printers not to overcomplicate things.
    Agree 100%, Michael.

    And I also think Rick hit his head on the nail with his analysis of what might have happened to the negative, that it's underexposed and overdeveloped.

    The test that I have described for Jenni to do is a simple film speed test, and a simple film developing test, to find a base line to jump from, getting negatives that in general print without much darkroom gymnastics, basically to get her a really solid starting point. There are no numbers involved, only subjectively judging negatives by contact printing them; something that isn't terribly complicated, but will help a lot to minimize frustration and waste in the darkroom.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #59
    Jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    89
    I agree, about the over processing, but disagree about the under exposure. I did not focus closer then infinity (I was very careful) I used a flash head (Normans) for the light source and a flash meter to get the correct exposure. I'm feeling under the weather at the moment so I won't be doing any testing today, but when I do I'll test some film and develop it to set a base line and work from there. By the way--- you guys are awesome! But where are the girls? I can't be the only one...LOL!

  10. #60
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,300
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    I agree, about the over processing, but disagree about the under exposure. I did not focus closer then infinity (I was very careful) I used a flash head (Normans) for the light source and a flash meter to get the correct exposure. I'm feeling under the weather at the moment so I won't be doing any testing today, but when I do I'll test some film and develop it to set a base line and work from there. By the way--- you guys are awesome! But where are the girls? I can't be the only one...LOL!
    Jenni,

    I'm sure that for an EI of 200 your exposure was bang on. But the film probably isn't a true 200-speed film, and in order to get better (read 'more') shadow detail, exposing the film at a lower EI, say 100, would have gotten you shadows with more separation. Basically, it's a film dynamic rather than your skill at metering the light, and could be described as under-exposure.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin