Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome printing techniques

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 25th November 2021, 07:34 AM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Although not the same, you could try filing a 35mm negative mask and printing the whole neg plus rebate. This often has the feel of a big contact print, but then your shots must be very good in camera.
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 25th November 2021, 09:58 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
Although not the same, you could try filing a 35mm negative mask and printing the whole neg plus rebate. This often has the feel of a big contact print, but then your shots must be very good in camera.
I'm entirely with you in your line of thought. I can't compose that accurately with my (film) Leica (and am really puzzled that some people apparently could, like HCB for instance). So I do what seemed to me the next best thing. I have three re-useable black frames in which I display my favourite photos of the moment. I use a white overmount that is only 2" wide all round (for a 16"x12" print), so the black frame is relatively close to the image. It certainly does provide that reference value for the eye.
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26th November 2021, 04:04 PM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,426
Default

Jonathan, I have been looking at the photographs on your website and have to say I am really impressed. What a superb collection!
I like the name of your website too. You obviously don't take yourself too seriously.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 26th November 2021, 04:19 PM
photomi7ch's Avatar
photomi7ch photomi7ch is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 2,516
Default

How do you make your contact prints? Do you place them under a glass sheet? When you place them in the enlarger do you use a glass less negative carrier?
__________________
Mitch

http://photomi7ch.blogspot.com/

If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 27th November 2021, 04:47 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Clark View Post
Jonathan, I have been looking at the photographs on your website and have to say I am really impressed. What a superb collection!
I like the name of your website too. You obviously don't take yourself too seriously.

Alan
Alan, what a really nice thing to say! Thanks so much.

I am serious about photography in a way, but I don't have any illusions about the long-term value of mine. They are just a bit of fun.

Jonathan
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 27th November 2021, 04:53 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photomi7ch View Post
How do you make your contact prints? Do you place them under a glass sheet? When you place them in the enlarger do you use a glass less negative carrier?
Ah, Mitch, what a really good point! I did not think of that one. I generally do exactly as you describe. I use a Paterson contact sheet printer, which has glass 3 or 4 mm thick. In the enlarger I have occasionally used a thin glass above the negative when exposure times were long and popping was an issue. I can't say I ever noticed any difference in tonality when prints were made with or without it, but you are right that I am not comparing like with like.

J.
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 27th November 2021, 05:50 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

I had a quick look at your photos and I agree with Alan

In the Rural Affairs and Fun At The Fair were all the photos taken on HP5+? It's just that despite what some say, HP5+ seems to me to have a great response to revealing shadow details as your shots have at the expense some would say of contrast but that's another debate.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 28th November 2021, 10:41 AM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
I had a quick look at your photos and I agree with Alan

In the Rural Affairs and Fun At The Fair were all the photos taken on HP5+? It's just that despite what some say, HP5+ seems to me to have a great response to revealing shadow details as your shots have at the expense some would say of contrast but that's another debate.

Mike
Thank you, Mike, I appreciate that very much.

I will need to go through and check which film type I used the negatives, but from recollection all four of Delta 100, FP4+, HP5+ and Tri-X are represented in Fun at the Fair. Shadow detail is largely about metering, of course, but also I have consistently used a 2-bath developer, Emofin by choice while it was available. I rated HP5+ and Tri-X at 800ISO for Emofin. The wrestling/boxing booth shots were taken at twilight on HP5+/Emofin. I loved that combination. The example picture of my daughter attached here was on FP4+ in Emofin (what looks like grain here is a scanning artefact - grain is barely visible in a 16x12 print). Since Emofin was discontinued, I have used Barry Thornton's 2-bath formula, but at box speed in every case.

When you say 'at the expense of contrast', do you mean that the images look a bit flat? Contrast is a fickle thing as I'm sure you know, and depends hugely on viewing conditions. Setting the contrast of website images to look good on everyone's viewing device seems impossible. I tweaked those images to look equally good on my ageing iMac and mobile phone. But I struggle with prints too, because when I print an image on different contrast grades, the one I favour today will be different from the one I favour tomorrow. But maybe you mean that the highlights seem blown, or the shadows not black enough, or something else?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Millie dreaming - Version 3.jpg
Views:	177
Size:	298.1 KB
ID:	4281  
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 28th November 2021, 10:49 AM
photomi7ch's Avatar
photomi7ch photomi7ch is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 2,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snusmumriken View Post
Ah, Mitch, what a really good point! I did not think of that one. I generally do exactly as you describe. I use a Paterson contact sheet printer, which has glass 3 or 4 mm thick. In the enlarger I have occasionally used a thin glass above the negative when exposure times were long and popping was an issue. I can't say I ever noticed any difference in tonality when prints were made with or without it, but you are right that I am not comparing like with like.

J.
From what you have said you have not used plain glass placed over the printing paper and then projected the negative through it. I know it is not identical to the contact print but the path of the light maybe disrupted in the same way and gain you the affect you are looking for.
__________________
Mitch

http://photomi7ch.blogspot.com/

If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 28th November 2021, 12:25 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Jonathan, the pic of your daughter certainly looks to have the right contrast but it was taken in much shadier conditions than the outdoor Fun At The Fair and Rural Affairs shots which have great open shadow detail but, yes, because of that do look a little flatter.

As you say each viewer may have different contrast settings on his VDU and you are right that there is an argument that what users of, say, HP5+ and its rival Tri-X see in their negs from which they scan or print is that each manufacturer gives times for a different contrast index thus making the comparison one that is apple and pears if users stick to each maker's CI.

My own very subjective experience with HP5+ is that outdoors its ability to catch detail in deep shadows is excellent. I have never used Tri-X but on countless YouTube videos dealing with comparisons nearly everyone concludes that HP5+ has more shadow detail but lower contrast and you pays your money and takes your pick as the saying goes

However as I said above those who appear to know a lot about development will cite that these users develop the 2 films to each of the film maker's CIs which are different. On that point Greg Davis aka The Naked Photographer did such a comparison in identical studio conditions and his conclusion was that there really was no difference

Anyway I am straying far from the subject of your thread so I'll stop. Suffice it to say that genuinely scientific comparisons between films are probably more difficult to execute than most YouTube presenters realise

Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I.S.E 35mm Contact Printer and Print-File Sheets Emerson Darkroom 10 10th April 2017 03:59 AM
Contact Sheet Contrast vs Enlargement Adrian Photography in general 14 25th May 2016 04:31 AM
300 Inch Contact Print--Help! joenail Monochrome printing techniques 28 16th May 2013 09:30 PM
Does enlargement alter contrast? MartyNL Monochrome printing techniques 12 21st November 2012 06:25 PM
Print presentation of contact prints. Keith Tapscott. Monochrome printing techniques 3 26th April 2011 12:43 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.