Just walking by (wetprint)

[martin s]

I'm getting better at printing, but I'm still not good. I don't want to bother the same people all the time, so I'll just ask publicly.

Here's a picture I took on Saturday

I tried to print it yesterday, but something happened which I haven't experienced before. It's uneven (I've experienced that) but always the same parts.

Here's a wetprint

The result is completely different, why is that? What bothers me most, is that the lady's head is that light. It's a Durst 605, 130 seconds at f8 in Tetenal Paper Developer (20°C) and a grade 4 filter. The film I used is Ilford Delta 100, developed in Rodinal 1:50.

What should I try next? Longer exposure, grade 2-3 or even less? Higher temperature?

thanks, martin

 

[Al Kaplan]

Developer temperature isn't critical in printing. Exposure time, constant developer agitation, and paper grade (or variable contast filter) are critical. Any place above 18c to 25c is fine. The image will just develop faster at the higher temperature. It's not easy looking at an on screen image a telling you exactly what's wrong. Try making a series of test exposures on small strips (2 x 5cm is good) until you get the density you want in the lighter areas. Then try different filters until you get the shadows you want.

Uneveness of density is corrected by dodging asnd burning in, and it's also possible to learn to use different filters to boost or lessen local conntrast while you're doing it.

Careful in boosting contrast here. You'll lose the "rainy day look". I like the top picture.

 

[Melvin]

The wet print looks underexposed. How long was the exposure time? It should be between 10 and 20 seconds. Print it so that the highlights are where you want them (the wet pavement, the woman's face) then if the shadows are too dark, lower the contrast. The first image looks right, it is darker with lower contrast. You should be able to print it without dodging or burning.

 

[JoeV]

Lower Contrast and More Exposure

Lower Contrast and More Exposure

I agree that the wet print appears to be underexposed.

I'd also suggest using a lower contrast filter, in the 2-3 grade range.

A good habit to get into when wet printing is to do a test strip for any new negative. Make sure you fully process the test strip, just like you would with a finished print, and dry it (I squeegee then use a hair dryer to quickly dry the test strip.) If you intend on selenium toning the finished print, I would recommend selenium toning the test strip, since doing so will tend to darken the shadows a bit and hence affect the tone of the finished print.

I also view the test strip under the same type light (i.e. incandescant or flourescant or daylight) that the print will be viewed in, and of a moderate strength; if the preview light is too bright as compared to where the final print will be displayed, then the print will appear too dark.

Also, when judging the best print exposure look at the principle parts of your image, which in this case would be the faces of the two people. Don't worry about getting the sky in the upper right corner to be darker, for instance (which you could darken by a bit of burn-in, but it's okay to me.)

~Joe

 

[martin s]

Thanks a lot, setting the exposure for the highlights is a great idea. All I was looking for was that the guy on the left was properly exposed. I'll try again later tonight, first without a filter just to make sure.

martin

 

[Chris101]

I would have certainly chosen a lower contrast filter - the big white area and dark shadows of your scan of the negative says that the scene will have difficult to tame contrast. Notice that the guy you want to preserve is well exposed in the print you showed. So expose a new print just like you did here, with your #4, then dodge him with your hand or a cardboard cutout, and give the rest of the scene lots of additional exposure, using a lower contrast filter for the additional exposure. Dodging like this isn't easy (you need to get the extent of your movement just right, or it shows) but the results of a nicely made split filter print are worth it.

 

[Al Kaplan]

...and get used to ALWAYS using a filter if your set-up has the filter mounted below the lens. The filter in the image path changes the focus a teensy bit. It's OK to make a main exposure through a #2 and a brief exposure through the #4, for instance, because it won't affect focus. Make the main exposure without a filter then punch up the blacks with a brief hit of Number Four will take the edge off fine detail.

 

[martin s]

So there's really more to it than I thought, I'll try all the advice you gave me, but dodging probably won't turn out that good, since I'm really not good at it yet. I'll practice though, no exams in the next few weeks, plenty of nights to spend in the darkroom.

martin

 

[Al Kaplan]

...and consider this: Give the same negative to each of ten experienced printers. You might get back ten prints so close in density and contrast they'll look like they were spit out of a machine. You might also get back ten prints so wildly different in mood and character from one another that you'll start to wonder just what it was that the PHOTOGRAPHER saw when he pushed the shutter release.

 

[rlouzan]

Martin,

Print the negative on VC paper with a Grade n2 filter, it will tell you all you need to know. I suggest you also learn Split printing.

Let us know how it goes!

Regards,
RLouzan