Well, here is the first half of the equation, with the two prints made by Rob and myself, of his negative, with Rob's print being on the left and mine on the right of the screen.


Rob says that he originally took this scene at the Fairy Glen in Inverness, Scotland, on his Olympus OM1n.


Rob sent me two prints, toned differently, on gloss and matt papers. I found the glossy paper easier to scan, although I prefer the matt print (no surprise there, for regular readers of the forum. )


His prints were made on Foma Retrobrom paper, which was then developed in Ilford Bromophen, (neither of which I've used) and then split-toned in sepia and then selenium toner, giving both prints different tones. The glossy paper is very red and coppery and the matt paper being a more sepia tone.


For my print sent to Rob, which as it turns out is very similar in the crop to his, I produced a straight b/w print (although I had thought of toning it, but changed my mind).


After making a straight print, I decided that I wanted the branch going across the print, on which there are light coloured leaves, to be the main focal point. So, I burned in both some of the top and bottom areas, to darken the detail in both, but mostly the stream at the bottom, which has a lot of highlights in it.


My print was made on some smaller Kentmere RC Fine Lustre paper (about 1/2 sheet of 10" x 8"), which I am enjoying doing currently.


Once dry, I window mounted my print in black card, which I felt set it off well.


Upon scanning, I found it hard to get Rob's print to be reproduced on screen, and my print looks a bit more contrasty on screen, although we all know that prints are so much better than scans, but I think they are good representations of the work.


I now await Rob's interpretation of my negative sent to him.