Good Neg? Bad Neg?

Okay, so this is probably a very silly question considering I've been doing

photography for awhile now....

 

anyhow, over the weekend a girlfriend of mine came over and looked at some of

the prints that I had done not so long ago.

My ego was high, since i felt that they were some of the best prints i've

done. however, that was short lived.

she seemed to think that my negitives might be bad since there seemed to be (in

some light) fogging. which i thought was do to if your paper might have been

exposed or if your safe light was too close ect ect ect...

i, trying to save face, agreed and did than (but not at the time) feel like the

print seemed muddy. meaning, too much mid tones and not enough white.

with the print I did do split filtering (first #00 filter and second #5) but it

still seemed as if there wasn't that much black and the whites were just not

really truly "white."

so...could this be do to a bad neg????

I know this is silly and pretty much know the answer is within my

printing...but it seems like i have to work too hard at coming up with a good

print. feeling that my negs aren't what they should be...

so the question is...

how do you really know if you have a good neg or not???

 

whenever i look at them with my lightbox...they all seem okay.

 

can you tell more by a contact sheet if you have good negs or not??? i

remember someone saying that once you produce a good contact sheet than you can

really judge how good your negs are or not.

 

anyways... sorry for the babbling but i fear that i'm doing something wrong

here and need to go back to the basics in order to fix whatever i'm doing

wrong.

i do have a copy of the photo...but i have to say that it's scanned in and

wouldn't do much good in judging... but i'm include it just so you can maybe

point out something that i'm missing.

 

thanks<div></div>

Hard to tell anything from a small JPEG.

 

If fogging is the problem you can test your safelight easily enough with the paper you normally use.

 

The larger print on this theme in your portfolio shows some grain. Assuming this was a flatbed scan of a print, not a scan of the negative, part of the problem may be graininess. It's difficult to get full tonality with grainy negs, often because grain is an indicator of underexposure and compensatory overdevelopment.

 

Regarding split-filter printing: Are you applying yellow filtration globally, followed by magenta filtration globally? IOW, non-selectively, no dodging or burning in conjunction with the variations in filtration? If so, this is merely complicating matters without adding any value. There's nothing that can be accomplished with the global application of yellow filtration, followed by magenta (or vice versa) that cannot be accomplished with a single filter setting. You can blend yellow and magenta together, if preferred, for a single exposure. But that type of split-filter printing serves no purpose. I don't wish to sound dogmatic but it's true - I learned the hard way after wasting a lot of time. Very experienced printers, including Ctein and Roger Hicks (from the "old days" on the CompuServe photo forum), explained to me why it was unnecessary.

 

However, selective application of filtration in conjunction with dodging and burning can be very useful. For example, a sky lacking in tone can be helped with the selective application of yellow, while the foreground is masked. If more contrast is desired for the foreground, or just part of the foreground, the sky can be masked off while magenta is applied to the foreground. This type of split-filter printing is the main reason why variable contrast paper is so versatile. To accomplish this with graded papers it was necessary to use intensifiers and reducers, sometimes two different types of developers, and two or more toning techniques.

Lex is (as usual ) 100% correct. And for most situations, you should have the ability to print a neg "straight" with good results provided it is properly exposed, and developed. Even with NO filtration, given that on most RC papers that yields "normal" conrast (around Gr2.5), a properly exposed and processed neg should give you a punchy, full tonal value print.

An easy check to ensure the neg is developped enough look.through a completely black section of the neg (i.e;leader)at a clear lightbulb. If you can see the filament and some details of the bulb development is probably oK and you should look for the problems in your printing. If you see only faintly the filament it means overdevlopment, if you see much detail around the bulb it means underdevelopment. OK this is not as good as a densitomer but it's a good indication

You are your own best critic. If you like your results take the criticism of others with a grain of salt. But are you getting the results you want or the results you get? Results you want begin with careful exposure then development to achieve the contrast wanted followed by a proper proof as a record and a guide in evaluating exposure and development. If you have a negative with detail in the important shadows and highlights all kinds of options are open when you print. In my view, controlling contrast in the print is the key. If you get that control with split filtering, great! But do it for a reason and not because someone suggested it as the best way. So the big question - are you getting the results you want?

It seems that you could just non-expose a few frames in your camera, that is with the lens cap on, or the camera in a blacked out room. Then make a few exposures like your bunny shot. Then develop as usual. At that point, with normal contrast filtration, expose the clear frames to find out the correct time for D-max. Then use that time to see how blocked up (or not) the guy's white shirt comes out. Something like this process has worked for me anyway.

Lex is mostly right... :)

 

Separating the Y and M filters into two exposures can assist in printing in that it can help you concentrate on one element of the print (highlights) somewhat in isolation before bringing the other into the 'picture' (shadows). I print with both a colour head (35mm & MF) and a VCCE (LF) and with the colour head I only use single Y or M (98% of the time it's M) filtration (I don't relate the numbers to grades... if I want more contrast I add some M, etc). Occasionally I'll be bamboozled by a print and go spilt filtration exposure to attack it in a different way. Otherwise I agreed with everything Lex said :)

 

Looking at your attached pic, I can't see how you need more contrast , it looks mighty 'punchy' on my screen (in fact there's lots of shadow detail lost and can't really tell if your highlights are holding detail due to the size but the histogram says there's some pure white in there). As someone mentioned above, does the picture represent your vision. If so (you were happy before she looked), ignore her advice!

 

Nige.

<p>Old thread, I know, and you probably solved it, but I'll put in a few words in case someone has a similar problem.<br>

I once had much difficulty getting adequate contrast in a printing session. It seemed as though even with very short (printing) exposure time, the whites were not really white. And with the short times, the shadows would never turn black. I first suspected some problem with the paper or developer, but the contact sheets printed earlier were all good.<br>

It turned out to be a problem of a very dirty elarging lens. With the negative in the carrier, the flare from the dirty lens added global exposure. But when doing contact printing, the flare was masked off by the negatives right above the paper.</p>