|
pootiebigwang posted: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 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? pootiebigwang posted: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. This is only partially true. RC paper is fine to use if you suck, you hate your work, you're a Nazi, you're allergic to achievement, or if your mother once explained to you why you'll never have nice things. Otherwise, fiber is probably the better choice. PS. RC sucks, don't use it or your're a jerk.
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
pootiebigwang posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Are dusty negs as big of a problem with wet printing as they are with scanning? Or worse? Less of a problem, by an order of magnitude, at least. You focus your enlarger on the emulsion side, so unless your dust is there, it doesn't show up as much until it gets way bigger. I usually see maybe 5-10 spots I need to spot after printing, but many many more than that on a neg scan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
That green tea looks really nice, I just went out and bought a box for experimentation and deliciousness. I can't post the results here though, because of SA's ironfisted anti-fun stance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
So what kinds of paper does everyone like to use? Obviously not RC paper because only a dumb idiot who doesn't value their work or time would ever use that for anything other than paper negatives or contact sheets. I'm pretty set in my ways but I'm always up for hearing about different options for papers out there. For 95% of my printing I use plain-jane Ilford Mc Fiber Glossy paper. This is pretty much your standard double weight paper, but it gets a great contrast range with split filter printing and the dry-down effect isn't too crazy. If I'm the one mixing developer, I dilute it a bit less in order to keep the tone nice and cool. When I have something I really like and want to make an exhibition quality with it, I'll go to Ilford 300 Art by Hahnemuhle. http://www.amazon.com/Ilford-Multig...ord+photo+paper It's pretty reasonably priced there on Amazon for 8x10, but I get it in 16x20 and at that size it's $6/sheet. Totally worth it though, it's the most beautiful multigrade paper I've ever seen by a mile. Thick, heavy textured surface, with a slight warm tone and a satin sheen. Downside #1 is that the dry-down is quite pronounced with your highlights. Do a LOT of tests and use a hairdryer or microwave to make sure your paper is bone dry when checking your exposures so you don't mess up a full-size print and flush a load of money down the drain. Downside #2 is that because of the surface texture and sheen, it doesn't scan very well. That's fine though, that's what the regular Ilford Glossy FB is for. I like the look of fiber matte paper, but I don't use it myself because it doesn't do strong blacks, and my whole schtick is heavy-handed blacks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Ilford MGIV FB matte. I can get it pretty much anywhere that stocks photo paper. I find the 300 Art is a really great compromise between glossy and matte fiber options, and is a much more organic surface than Ilford RC pearl. Have you ever done a test to figure out the actual zone range of tones on the matte fiber? Oh, another difference about the 300 Art... it will print with the full range of FB Glossy, including the deep blacks I love to get, but responds to the different filters themselves at a different rate. If I'm doing a split grade print of the same negative on both vanilla Ilford FB Glossy and the 300 Art, the 0/5 ratios are very different, with the Art paper filling in blacks much quicker. The result is much shorter 0/00 grade exposures for the same result.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I seem to remember someone in the Dorkroom printing directly onto walls, brushing the emulsion on top of the white paint. Ring any bells? I'd like to hear more about this, because I'm absolutely stumped as to how someone would be able to adequately fix and wash emulsion on a standing wall.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:You could black out your entire window except for a single magnifying lens that projects the image but managing focal distance would be a real pisser -- my cardboard box cyanoneg camera has a ~2"x6" fresnel lens that requires a ~5"-6" focal length (depending on distance to subject). I think most of those "make your room a giant camera obscura" experiments use a tiny pinhole style aperture and everything I've seen seems to indicate that cyanotype is just plain not sensitive enough to handle pinhole exposures. Yeah, I did some quick math the other day trying to figure out the exposure of a sheet of cyanotype in my 8x10 camera and it was in the day+ range. That was wide open at f9. A room-sized pinhole camera obscura is going to have an aperture in the triple-digits. It could take months.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:What are you using to do your calculations? Did you find something that lets you compensate for UV coatings? I just did the simple math, I'm sure there would need to still be loads of testing. I took the exposure times under direct sun and no aperture and then added it up all the way to f9. Like I said, probably lots of testing, but it was easily well over a day.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I ended up going with 8 seconds using filter #0 and 2 seconds using filter #5. What...? That's the craziest ratio I've ever heard. I've never in nearly ten years had a black (5) exposure shorter than the whites (0) exposure, and because anything over 4 doubles the exposure time, the black exposure is usually more than twice the time of the white. The only way I can think you managed to come up with a value THAT FAR outside the norm for a properly exposed negative is that your neg is SUPER overexposed yet somehow still incredibly contrasty. Can you talk more about what you did here?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Edit: I mean the print turned out, so really, what's going on? I have no idea. I would say you biased the tones way out of whack from where the negative would put them in a straight print, but it doesn't look weird to me. Just to clarify though, you started by exposing your whites first? Because that's not how I learned to do it, and the order is important for a reason. My order: -#5 test strip over my darkest section that I need to control. -find my best time for blacks, record it -EXPOSE THE NEXT TEST STRIP WITH THAT TIME AND #5 FILTER over your section of highlights you need to control. Then test #0 filter times ON TOP OF THAT. -find my best time for highlights, record it. -Make a final test strip that combines the #5 and #0 exposure. You may find that blacks get a bit darker than your first test, adjust your #5 time accordingly. The reason I start with the #5 time is because the 00/0 filters fill in so much tone so quickly, while the #5 acts more exclusively on blacks. If you're starting with the 00 or 0, you're probably filling in way more midtones than you want in order to build up that density. To be honest, your split-filtered example looks more flat than your previous single grade print, and that seems to explain that to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Weird. Well I'm not going to call another teacher wrong, but I think there's a good reason to start with your shadows. I bet your contrast range is a lot more dynamic if you try it my way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Those are rad. I just did some toned cyanotypes from a model shoot with an 8x10 on X-Ray film as well. X-Ray film seems like a pretty amazing loophole around $10+/sheet conventional film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
 This is the most successful image from my darkroom session last night.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Just aimed my camera phone at the grain focuser. I love the three-dimensionality of negatives and that hand was particularly expressive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
I'm teaching an advanced darkroom practice class in SF and my first session is tonight. We'll see how well I can school these kids on split filter printing, and whether or not I'll have converts by the end of the workshop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:...I am using RC paper... Stop this. Knock it off. Really. STOP IT. STOP IT. DON'T DO IT. You kids are the reason I drink.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yeah you can print through paper prints. It might be best to use a glossy RC paper to get the least paper texture in the contact print, I haven't tried it myself. I've been working on a project shot solely on 8x10 paper negatives and printed in an enlarger. The negatives themselves are very contrasty, but the process of printing through an enlarger reduces the contrast quite a bit, so expect to use a #5 filter.  Eva at the House by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
rohan posted:Is there an appreciable difference between a 00 and 0 filter for split-filter printing? I'm using a public darkroom right now that has several sets of Ilford filters, but none of them include a 00 filter. I teach an advanced darkroom class and I start my students off using 00 and 5 just for the sake of simplicity. In my own practice I actually do 0 and 5. I find that for a main exposure, the 00 reduces the contrast just a little too much so I stick with 0. I've been doing it for a very long time, however, and it is a very small distinction that I doubt most people would notice. 0 is fine if you don't have a 00 and there's very little chance you'll see the difference. You really should have your own set of filters though, if you're working at a place with such iffy equipment. Consistency is your friend.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:How many prints do you guys get out of one session, and do you feel bad about dumping dev mix after each session if it's not exhausted? Or do you reuse it for a few days? To be completely honest, I get one print, sometimes two in a 4 hour session. Thankfully I do my work at a public darkroom, so there's other people in there using the chemistry. We DO NOT reuse developer, it exhausts in the air, no developing required.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:I've been developing film in some dektol that was prepared some two or three years ago and everything is going just fine... People are way too cautious with photography chemistry in general imo. If you're not Ansel Adams trying to get a perfect negative out of film and developers made with technology from 100 years ago, you can be way less cautious than what a lot of people and classes will tell you to be and still come out with pretty good negatives. I'm not saying either of you are necessarily wrong, but at some point in your darkroom adventures you do get skilled/picky enough that every little nuance of a negative because something you notice and work around. I make it my personal policy not to use expired film, paper, or chemistry just to avoid any potential inconsistency.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:There's also something stylistic about it. I'm someone that doesn't really care about dirt and scratches, tends not to care about grain size too much or latitude either as long as my subject is well (and even that well is quite relative) exposed, so I can give in and not be so precise in the process, while your work involves a level of craftmanship that honestly, I can't even imagine myself doing (If you didn't get it yet, I love it and you should post more pics!). Hah, thank you!  Unfortunately I'm doing a steady amount of work at the moment, but lately with the project I'm in, a photo session usually concludes with one single select. If that select happens to have some nudity, then it's verboten here. So I may only produce a dozen or so photos this year, but I promise I'm still shooting plenty, and I'll keep posting everything I'm able to. That's a roundabout way of talking about why things like precise exposures and developing an technique matter so much at the moment. I promise I'm not a real darkroom sperg- I don't do any zone system work, no fancy developing, no nothing beyond the basics- but when I'm shooting for a concept and I may only even like one or two shots from a whole day, then they drat well better have a good negative. I just hate leaving anything to chance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
OK! Got this one last week. It's slightly  so I'll link the thumbnail. Lauralee by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
I just had a work shortlisted for a very important exhibition and it's one of the most difficult shots I have to get right. I want to send them the most perfect version possible. Posting from the darkroom, second day of trying for a good print. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Now you have to show it to us after it's done (even if you have to I doubt I'll re-scan the shot since I already got a good one in the past. The problem is that I can't use that particular print to send off. I've posted the shot before though-  Ariel by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't keep anything like that in the bathroom in all that fogginess. I used to print in my bathroom as well, but never stored the enlarger in there. It sucks but you just have to move it in and out if it's portable (mine was).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Amazing as always mate! Thanks! And as a bonus follow-up to that old post of mine, I got into that important show I was all flustered over. So it all worked out!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 00:38
|
|