what is a good negative?

[pellicle]

Hi

hi pellicle

have you tried split filter printing?

in the past yes, but my setup at the moment is very basic with a cardboard lighting can fashioned to shield the bulb and hold the filter. I'm working on top of the washing machine in the laundry/bathroom in our small flat.

[pellicle]

David

It sounds like you need a contrastier negative for contact printing on the paper you are using.

could be ... that's why I posted the linear full range scan.

I can make a 'pleasing print' by my tried and true test strip method but I wanted to try out some methods I've read here which others swear by (and perhaps others swear at??).

I know I had some development problems when I was first setting up. I changed from open tray (which were perfect if scratched) to a JOBO 2553 tank rotated not used for inversion or other methods (which gave uneven development / streaks and generally drank developer) to now settling on the BTZS tubes which are giving me the best results for my purposes so far.

That neg was not one of the BTZS developed one it was JOBO drum

(aside: I'm keeping the drum to cope with C41 in future as I think I can mix in both 120 and 4x5 sheet in it, but I've given up on it for black and white).

:-)

[pellicle]

Hi

{two sheets in holder both exposed develop one}

This is also good practice because sheet film is more damage, dust, light leak, and user error prone than roll film, so if something happens to the first one, you have one more shot at it.

yes, I really like this idea too, but the problem (which you also identify) is that when I'm out for a day hike and I have only 5 holders with me its really more frustrating to find that

• after taking 3 or 4 shots and I start to warm up and then come across good subject matter and need to use my compact digital to even have an image
• rather than come home with a few unexposed sheets

I've just bought a 6x12 roll back to help with this problem

[pellicle]

Well

if something looks wrong it probably is

I just repeated the process this morning and get perfect prints with no effort on a #4

the problem? -> I diluted the dektol 1:1 (like my d-76 film process ... like a moron) instead of 1:3 for my tray process.

sigh

well, while I'm on the subject ... I buy dektol as a powder and make the stock solution as per the kodak directions. I normally put 1:3 of dektol into the tray and develop the print for 3 min. I don't do many prints and discard when finished.

anyone have any thoughts / suggestions on this? (incase my mind is not working on other areas ... sigh)

[Michael A. Smith]

A good negative is one that you can make a good print from. It doesn't matter what grade of paper you need to make that good print.

As someone already wrote, forget the rules. Just look at the negatives and prints. The only requirement is that you FULLY understand the exposure/development relationship.

Looking at your negative, best as I can on a computer screen, it appears that your negative lacks sufficient contrast. An understanding of the exposure/development relationship quickly indicates that you needed to increase the development time for this negative. Had you been developing by inspection, you would have immediately realized this and given the negative more development.

Michael A. Smith

[pellicle]

Hi

As someone already wrote, forget the rules. Just look at the negatives and prints. The only requirement is that you FULLY understand the exposure/development relationship.

good advice. I have a set of sheets which I exposed one sunny day at a creek with dark waters bounded by snow. I developed sheets in 3min 6 min and 12 min (where N = 6 min for the temperature I was using). I have been trying to develop my understanding of this. In the last year of making density checks of my negatives (rather than just looking) I feel I've come a long way (although perhaps not as far as I'd like).

I was surprised to find that even that didn't have the densest area being as dense as the element of a light bulb I photographed and developed normally. I'm sure that there is some substantial difference between the snow and the filament brightness.

Film it seems handles quite an amount of exposure before it hits a wall.

The issue for me now is how this negative (and its range of density) can translate to the print (and just how far it can go).

I've been restricting myself to one film (ADOX) one developer (D-76) and one paper (MG IV portfolio) just so as to not get confused.

I wish I could compare numbers with people as I find that easier to reconcile with.

[CBG]

... I was surprised to find that even that didn't have the densest area being as dense as the element of a light bulb I photographed and developed normally. I'm sure that there is some substantial difference between the snow and the filament brightness. ... I wish I could compare numbers with people as I find that easier to reconcile with.

Some random thoughts:

I'm not sure I'd use the image of a light bulb filament as an absolute standard for evaluating negatives. I presume you processed that too.

Similarly, I'm not sure a snowy scene is the best for getting the hang of a "normal" developing time, etc. A scene composed of really dark and really bright elements and probably a rather extreme contrast may lead you astray. A set up with a full range of mid tones as well as a modest representation at the extremes would be the easiest starter.

I think that comparing numbers with someone else is less useful than what you are doing now; doing prints and finding out where you can improve. The numbers are good for a lab, but won't do the important work of creating a proceedure based upon your results.

... I developed sheets in 3min 6 min and 12 min (where N = 6 min for the temperature I was using) ...

Great start - the idea of geometic jumps in developing times as a test series is exactly the way to do it. When you are more zeroed in on a time, you can do jumps at a smaller increment of time. Use the FStop series as a basis. Half stop or third stop series and you will find you can fine tune film development. I keep a set of those numbers handy for all sorts of uses. I calculated them wayyy out into the thousands for just such tasks as yours.

Given that you needed grade 4 to get a good print, maybe you need to push your film developing time further to build enough contrast so it works better on grade 2 or 3.

Best,

C

[pellicle]

I'm not sure I'd use the image of a light bulb filament as an absolute standard for evaluating negatives. I presume you processed that too.

sure, I actually included it in a 'scene' to give myself some measure of what it the darkest and brightest that the film would capture. I feel I got valuable data from it

Similarly, I'm not sure a snowy scene is the best for getting the hang of a "normal" developing time, etc. A scene composed of really dark and really bright elements and probably a rather extreme contrast may lead you astray. A set up with a full range of mid tones as well as a modest representation at the extremes would be the easiest starter.

sure, again this was also a taylored experiment as I was trying to understand what effects it had on highlights and being able to retain tonality.

Great start - the idea of geometic jumps in developing times as a test series is exactly the way to do it

thanks for the feedback, I kind a got the idea from a book (the one by by Phil Davis) but anyway ;-)