|
USE FILTERS! Filters are crucial for making the images pop and increasing the contrast. I am partial to the split filter process, specifically using a 2 and 5. http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/split-filter-printing.html This is also great because it increases the time that you have to dodge and burn. Also use fiber paper. RC is fine for starting out and learning how to make a print, but the quality you get in fiber is unmatched and I highly recommend it.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:I split filter as well, but my highlights are exposed with a 0, moving on to a 00 for burns. I was taught 5/00, but figured out that 00 put down too much tone for my tastes. I'm curious why you use a 2 for your highlights, though. Can I see some examples? Yeah I would use either the 1 1/2 or 2 but the only reason was because the (lovely) university darkroom I was using was missing the 00-1. My professor at the time didn't even teach anything about split filtering, I had to pursue it on my own. It was very poorly ran and the university doesn't even utilize the darkroom anymore, which is a severe bummer. So I was essentially loving around on my own accord and using the materials I had. But here are some quick scans of some of my stuff. People should also keep in mind that there is definitely a difference between seeing a print in person and seeing a scan of it, especially after seeing how matte paper scans in vs glossy paper.  print by Dev Luns, on Flickr print by Dev Luns, on Flickr print by Dev Luns, on Flickr print by Dev Luns, on Flickr print by Dev Luns, on FlickrHere's some negative stacking/multiple exposure  print by Dev Luns, on Flickr print by Dev Luns, on FlickrI've always been a big fan of your darkroom work McMadCow so I know this stuff isn't reaching the level that you have reached. I really wish I had figured out edge burning and had honed the skill down some more because it really is my personal favorite way to make work, as photoshop feels so cold in comparison. I hope one day to get my own darkroom, but apartment life pretty much destroys any hope of that, and Alabama is far too god awful to have a public darkroom. But hopefully one day I can get back into it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Are dusty negs as big of a problem with wet printing as they are with scanning? Or worse? The problem isn't really dust on the surface of the negative which is a pain in scanning but dust that has dried on the emulsion. In those situations where you have dust spots on your print you have to hand spot with spotting dye. I never really had too many issues with dust in wet printing thankfully, far less than what I do currently in scanning. McMadCow posted:I think you'll find that going to 0/00 opens up a whole new world for you and will make the process far more intuitive. Using a 2 for your highlights must bring down your shadows in a massive way, considering that 2 is the contrast grade equal to no filter at all. I can quite often get my combined exposure correct on my first test strip because 0 affects shadows very little, if at all. The whole point of split filtering is to expose the extremes separately, and a 2 is the literal opposite of that. I'm sure it will, knowing that makes far more sense, it'd be interesting to see how my previous and current stuff would come out. Tonality wise I felt more than satisfied with it at the time, but it'd be nice to try again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Can you do all your testing on cheaper paper and then do the final print on the good stuff? Or does the type of paper affect the outcome? In a pinch I was using RC paper for test strips and found the exposure time was usually pretty similar between it and fiber paper.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 06:26
|
|