Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,531   Posts: 1,645,746   Online: 988
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    bvy
    bvy is online now

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,198
    Images
    42
    Thank you. I'm intrigued by the idea of "dialed in" filtering using the dichroic head, combined with a grade 5 filter. Will this really increase contrast beyond grade 5 (this came up in the other thread)? Would the shadows in this image be helped by doing such?

    Also, I use Ilford (PQ) paper developer. I wonder if a different dilution or different developer all together wouldn't help.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,458
    There is a two bath process using Selectol soft and then hard developer but I don't know how much difference it would make.

    If it's any consolation I thought your second version nearly had it right. OK the man in the background was a little dark and could have been dodged or possibly lightened with highly dilute bleach on a cotton bud and water played on it.

    All these things sound easy but take practice and time to get right.

    pentaxuser

  3. #23
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    650
    > Will this really increase contrast beyond grade 5

    You don't reach grade 5 with dichroitic filters. I guess maximal filtering PLUS grade 5 filter + longer development gets one grade more than dichroitc filter alone. But this depends strongly on the paper. FOMA ist softer than MCC, for instance.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by piu58 View Post
    >
    You don't reach grade 5 with dichroitic filters.
    This not correct for all enlargers. Some can do it easily such as my Durst L1200 and others can't such as some LPL units. And paper needs to be new on any enlarger. Year old paper can easily lose a grade of contrast, especially if not kept well. i.e. too hot or in darkroom with all those fumes floating around.

  5. #25
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,121
    Images
    1
    dear bvy,
    i don't think this print needs anything special, just the standard procedure:
    1. Set your enlarger to a normal filtration(grade 2).
    2. Add just the exposure to get a hint of tonality in the highlights(zoneVIII-IX).
    3. Increase contrast to get true black in deep shadows(under the table?).
    4. Adjust exposure due to contrast increase.
    5. done!
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    73
    To be honest if I shot this image I would say it falls to the category of trash bin images. No offense please!
    Sometimes the conditions are so difficult that you can't get away with a decent picture. I would just learn for the future (be it dynamic range of the film or contrast taming development techniques) and go shoot some more.

  7. #27
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by koja View Post
    To be honest if I shot this image I would say it falls to the category of trash bin images.
    While I agree with your point, I wouldn't be so quick to toss this image into the bin for two reasons.

    First, working with less-than-ideal images is instructive. You learn the limits of the camera, the film and darkroom printing. Understanding this makes it easier for you to make a better image next time. Basically, we learn from our mistakes.

    Second, negative that we think are trash on one day can be made into good pictures on another day, in other ways.

    Many years ago, I took a photo on the subway platform at Kendall Station in Boston (Cambridge) Mass.
    It was dark. The shutter speed was low. The aperture was wide open. The picture was dark and blurry. When I took the photo, I gave it a quick look and thought, "Trash."
    Twenty years later, I was going through my old negatives and I happened to look at this image again. It caught my eye so I scanned it and looked at it on the computer screen.
    Turns out... If I changed the way I look at the picture, I was able to make something out of it! If I had trashed that picture, I never would have had the opportunity to make a good image out of it.

    So, the way I see it, go ahead and work on the image you have. See what you can do with it. Maybe you'll make something good out of it. Maybe you won't but you will have learned something in the process. Then, put it in a notebook and file it away. Maybe, years from now, you'll look at that picture with a fresh eye and see something you missed before.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by piu58 View Post
    > Will this really increase contrast beyond grade 5

    You don't reach grade 5 with dichroitic filters. I guess maximal filtering PLUS grade 5 filter + longer development gets one grade more than dichroitc filter alone. But this depends strongly on the paper. FOMA ist softer than MCC, for instance.
    The key word is FILTER. That is what filters do, they filter out light and if all the green light has been filtered out by one filter, adding a second filter to try and filter out some more green light will make zero difference except increase print time due to added filter density.
    The question is whether all the green light has been filtered out by one dichroic filter. Possibly not but it really depends on your particular enlarger so adding a second filter may have an effect but not nearly as much as you might at first think.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,458
    Ralph gives what I strongly suspect is a comprehensive answer in five short easy to understand lines. This might just explain why his book is so good.

    pentaxuser

  10. #30
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,047
    Images
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by koja View Post
    To be honest if I shot this image I would say it falls to the category of trash bin images. No offense please!
    Sometimes the conditions are so difficult that you can't get away with a decent picture. I would just learn for the future (be it dynamic range of the film or contrast taming development techniques) and go shoot some more.
    While I would not go so far as to say trash this image, as it may be one that is important to you and needs to be rescued. koja has a valid point. Exposing the negative correctly and then giving it correct development for the type of enlarger you are using, (i.e. condenser or diffuser) means that you only need show the negative to the enlarger to produce a good print. Extensive time spent in producing consistently good negs (and I can’t do it all the time) ensures simplistic printing.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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