I think print #1 has been overexposed somehow because there aren't any whites - so it's hard to judge that one. I would recommend either less exposure time in the enlarger or less time in the developer. That will give you a better comparison on the amounts of greys available in grade 3.5 versus the amounts of greys available in 4 - which will affect the way you perceive the blacks as well.
..."Use the exposure time to favor the highlights. Once you have the highlights where you want them, look at the darker ares of the print. If the blacks are not right, change the contrast grade or filter to get them where you want them. Do not use exposure to bring in the blacks. If the highlights look good but the blacks look weak, increase the contrast. If the highlights look good but the blacks are too dark, decrease the contrast. Don't forget to make a new test print if you change the contrast. Again, adjust the exposure to favor the highlights, letting the blacks be determined by the contrast grade or filter that you use."...
You want to learn darkroom printing? I suggest, you print John's note and stick it on your darkroom wall. Forget everything else, this is the best advice you'll ever get.
Last edited by RalphLambrecht; 01-26-2010 at 04:09 PM.
Reason: spelling error corrected
John Irvine's post is spot on regarding how to adjust for the proper contrast during a printing session. The only thing it doesn't cover is how black is black on your paper. The advice to do a maximum black test is also good. It is beneficial to know how black your chosen paper can get. One trick I learned long ago is to expose a full sheet of paper to maximum black. Fully process it and keep it in your darkroom. When making prints, cut a small section of the paper and put it in the wash water so it will be wet the same as the paper you are evaluating. When you adjust the contrast as John describes, hold the small scrap of black up to the work print to compare print tones. You easily can tell it the black on your work print is in fact max black for your paper. If it is not, up the contrast a bit.
Is it just me, or is there simply no way these two images can be from the same negative??
It is not just a different crop. Look at the "shadow" at the left side of the scanned and digitally manipulated image, it is not visible in the wet Ilford print.
It seems to me that these may be from two different negatives, the second taken when a bright sunny spot hit the car... Unless the OP did significant additional manipulations like strong dodging and burning in Photoshop, there is just no way the negatives are the same.
Here's my variant of the Ilford wet print with Photoshop "enhanced" contrast, notice how it is different from the other image... especially in terms of where the shadows and light spots are.
Again: these are unlikely to be the same negative... start with the same negative, and you will likely have less trouble replicating the results in the wet darkroom.
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
Sorry to bend the thread in the d*****l direction a bit, let's keep it at this. The only reason I came up with it is to make sure we have a meaningful discussion here. If the OP confirms that these are from two different negatives, the whole discussion may be pointless.
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
There should be more tonal range that can be yielded from the wet print. Like Bill says, the midtones are compressed and more importantly, the whole image is muddy as a result. Exposing for your highlights and adjusting print contrast for the black you want like John, and Ralph stated is the right starting point. I will also say, I've never gotten results I like with Ilford RC paper.... Without starting a flame war, I would suggest a Variable Contrast fiber paper, or better yet, a graded paper to learn with.
Simplification is the key, and graded paper teaches you to better tailor your negs to the paper you print with. You've been bombarded by many responses and all the ideas are valid, while only a few are truly accurate for you to learn from. It would be interesting to see the neg scanned as a positive to get some better idea on the tonal scale for this image.
Yes it is the same negative. I adjusted the curve, contrast sharpened, dodge and burned in Photoshop. To night I am going to do as John and Ralph suggested and test of MAX BLACK. increase the contast filter and exposure time and see if I start moving in the right direction.
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by John Irvine 
