Suggestions for Improving this Print?

[ericphelps]

Some of my darkroom results have lately been more heartening than this particular print , but I'd like to understand what to do while in the darkroom to improve one like this. I only had a moment to shoot this, she was welcoming but in a hurry, it's from my Nikon Ftn Photomic 50mm Nikkor lens with Kodak 400TX film. It was a bright day, so likely shot at 250th at F11 or F16, I can't remember.

 

The negative is dense, failing the newspaper 'reading test', but actually looks very salvageable for someone with skill. After doing some test strips I settled on 20 seconds under the enlarger, .05 filter, and F5.6 on the enlarger lens, then 1:40 minutes in Dektol.

 

I don't yet have a scanner so this was shot into the computer with an iPhone, though excepting the slight light flair to the left of her hat, the copy shown here is an accurate example of the print.

 

But it's intensely grainy and dark, lifeless, looks muddy. What methods or changes could I try on this to end up with a better print? And, what did I do in processing that would account for this 'look'?

 

Thanks!

 

[AJG]

From your image here I would say that the print is overexposed--there isn't any white in her shirt. As for grain, if the negative is overexposed then film grain will be more visible in your prints. Also, the negative was emulsion side up in the enlarger--that's why all of the signs read backwards.

[ed_farmer]

One thing that you didn't mention is the paper that you are printing on. This appears to have a warm tone. Is that the paper or your phone photo?

 

As noted above, the print is over exposed (and backwards unless that is a reflection behind her). It also lacks contrast. You might need to print on a harder paper or with a different filter if you are using VC paper.

 

Sometimes though, as image that we really want to be successful, simply isn't. In this case, you over exposed the image initially and, since you are using roll film, didn't have a way to customize the processing for this one image.

[ericphelps]

From your image here I would say that the print is overexposed--there isn't any white in her shirt. As for grain, if the negative is overexposed then film grain will be more visible in your prints. Also, the negative was emulsion side up in the enlarger--that's why all of the signs read backwards.

 

Thanks AJG, I understand what you're saying. I should also invest in a scanner, in this case shooting the photo with an iPhone has given it a yellowish cast the original doesn't have. I'll have to be much quicker checking the camera settings for street shooting, I only had a few seconds here before she was off.

[ericphelps]

One thing that you didn't mention is the paper that you are printing on. This appears to have a warm tone. Is that the paper or your phone photo?

 

As noted above, the print is over exposed (and backwards unless that is a reflection behind her). It also lacks contrast. You might need to print on a harder paper or with a different filter if you are using VC paper.

 

Sometimes though, as image that we really want to be successful, simply isn't. In this case, you over exposed the image initially and, since you are using roll film, didn't have a way to customize the processing for this one image.

 

Thanks ed, the paper is Ilford Multi-grade RC Pearl, the only one I've used so far to try to set a baseline for results. Yes, I'll just have to give up on this one I guess. I do know about the 'emulsion to emulsion' orientation of negative to easel but that must have slipped by trying to get all else in line lol.

[ed_farmer]

I didn't say to give up on it! I said . . . "Sometimes . . . "

 

You're already using VC paper, try to get a better print with a harder filter.

[Bill C]

I concur with AJG and Ed - print lighter and maybe more contrast.

 

The woman's face is the key element of the shot, so that's what you should concentrate on printing the best.

 

Once you find a good setting for that you could try darkening the background. You say that your current print exposure is 20 seconds. Say, for example, that you find a good exposure for the face is 15 seconds (you find this by trial and error - perhaps several test strips at 12, 15, and 18 seconds, or whatever). So say you decide on 20 seconds for the background, but only 15 seconds for the face. What I would try first is to "dodge" the face a bit. By this I mean to set your timer for a 20 second exposure, then, during that exposure, you block light from the face for about 5 seconds.

 

One way you can block this light is to have a piece of cardboard taped to a piece of wire, and wiggle it around the face area for 5 seconds. Closer to the lens makes your cardboard shape seem larger (and fuzzier). If the top of the cardboard cutout is a light color this makes it easy to see what part of the image is being blocked.

 

This "dodging" can be sort of a delicate thing. If you do too much the edges may be noticeable, or obvious in some other way. A more advanced way can be to cut out a dodging tool for a specific image. You could prop up a large piece of cardboard above the easel so that a blurry image is projected on it. Draw an outline of the face then cut it out with a scissors or craft knife. This then becomes a more precise dodging tool. If the edges show up too much you can cut a sawtooth pattern in your mask.

 

Anyway, just some things to try. Personally I would avoid shoot in difficult areas. If you can find another position where the people will be facing into the light - perhaps a white wall is reflecting light into their face, and the background is relatively shaded, then this makes for an easier print. The lighting thing can be fairly subtle; it tends to make a bigger difference on film than it does to our eye. But I think that you sort of have to struggle through such things to develop an appreciation for the subtleties. Best of luck, you're getting a good start.

[ed_farmer]

There are no whites and barely any blacks. Yes, this might require some dodging of the face but my guess is that a higher contrast printing filter and proper exposure will do the job. Remember, shorter printing times will not produce stronger blacks and burning the background will not produce stronger whites.

[Bill C]

Could be, i just wouldn't judge critically by an iPhone photo. I would have thought a brown toner was used if I trusted the phone shot. The OP, Eric, just has to use his judgment from the actual print.

[ericphelps]

Thanks Bill C and Ed for this. I took notes on all test strips for this print, using the 'cut 8x10 paper into 5 pieces, 2" each' method for an across the negative example. I started the enlarger, a Saunders LPL, at F8 with #2 filter at 28 seconds giving an unacceptably light test strip. Next, F5.6, with 1.5 filter for 16 seconds giving an acceptable print similar to the one posted, but again poor range of B&W's and grainy.

Obviously I'm all over the map on these, no real direction, so next darkroom session I plan to keep all times and F stops the same, and using this same negative simply increase the filters from 0-5 for each test strip. This should show me at least the effects of the internal filters, and I can go from there.

Burning and dodging will sometimes be required in an area, but to me first the general print should be good before I attempt small area improvements.

 

Thanks again to both of you for the help!