Printing?

[Ricochetrider]

Hello everyone,

 

Just wanted to ask a question or two to you all. I'm not currently in position to have a darkroom, and being a novice, don't know much, if anything, about the process of turning a negative into a printed photo.

 

That said, I wish to have some things printed, so have been looking around to find someplace where I can have tactual darkroom or lab made silver gelatin prints made from my negative. Looking through everything, I decided I have 2 images I wish to start with- so was going my negatives the other day, to find these and get them out for a look, prior to sending one or both out.

 

The question arises with one of them, the negative is a bit thin so I'm wondering how it would work, where is the optimum in a negative?

This thin(ish) negative produced a reasonable looking proof print, and up until the point where I saw the actual negative for the first t time, I had no idea that it would be anything besides OK.

 

Now, with that said, I have no real way to get a good look at the negatives, other than holding up to the light and looking at it with my naked eye. I suppose I could tape it to a window and use a magnifying glass to get a bit better look?

 

Having produced a reasonable proof print, is it fair to assume a good print could be made of this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a bit more background, the image was shot on a Canon AE-1 Program camera I bought at an estate sale a few years ago. This was my first foray into film and away from a simple pocket-sized point & shoot camera, although I still just set the thing to "auto" and clicked away. Having never been cleaned or CLA'd, the camera's metering, (and probably my own) ability to nail the focus was hit and miss, it seems, although the 50mm f1.8 lens would at times produce almost magical or dreamy images, even if they were occasionally softly fuzzy.

 

Here is the image in question, a scan on my non-photographic home printer of a less-than-ideal proof print- so probably a couple times removed from reality?

 

Sorry about the watermark.

 

[Sandy Vongries]

I developed and printed in the kitchen or bathroom of places I rented as a young man - you really don't need a darkroom. Load the film into developing tanks in a changing bag, develop anywhere. Print - Improvise window shades and work at night. Works just fine - photo enlargers and other darkroom equipment can be had inexpensively on line.

Viewing negatives - various devices are available. I bought a P frame A 5a can't recall what I paid - here is a cheap one from B&H link Porta-Trace / Gagne 8x10" LED ABS Plastic Light Box (White). It is also useful when digitizing slides or negatives with a digital camera.

Can't say much about the example - to your point - I can only see what it is, not what it was. Good Luck moving ahead!

[AJG]

+1 on a small lightbox and a loupe for checking sharpness on negatives. As Sandy said, there is lots of darkroom equipment available for little money and since photo paper isn't as light sensitive as film the darkroom conditions aren't as rigorous. A friend of mine who was living in a small apartment for a while had his enlarger, trays and chemicals stored on a mechanic's cart that he would roll into his bathroom at night when he wanted to print and washed prints in his bathtub. Not ideal, but it worked. A bathroom can be a good choice since it will usually have an exhaust fan, but if you go this route make sure that there is enough air brought in from outside the room so that the ventilator fan can do its job.

 

Even without an enlarger you could do contact sheets of your negatives which would give you a better idea of how they might enlarge with respect to the tonal scale of printing paper and they would give you a good idea of how well you are exposing and developing your film. If you're looking for a good custom lab I would recommend Praus Productions in Rochester, NY. They do excellent custom B&W printing as well as color--I'm not family or a business partner, just a satisfied customer.

[conrad_hoffman]

Dorm rooms, bathrooms, closets, kitchens, laundry rooms and basements have all been my darkrooms. It's what you do, not where you do it! IMO, having a good background in wet process photography is surprisingly helpful in understanding digital photography too.

[charles_stobbs3]

I like AJG's advice except for one thing. You should never put an exhaust fan in a dark room, it sucks in air from under the door and through all kinds of cracks and crevices, usually laden with dust. An inlet fan which can easily ben filtered is the way to fo.

[rodeo_joe1]

The 'ideal' negative has a maximum density under 2.0 in the highlights where you want some detail, and a minimum density of around 0.2 to 0.3 in the detailed shadows. Giving you a printable range of approximately 1.8D. Obviously there's some leeway that can be taken up by changing paper grade or by dodging and burning, but 1.8D from shadows to highlights is what to aim for.

 

To some people, such a negative might appear quite thin, since you can fairly easily see through a density of 2.0. However, it's better than having a thick and contrasty negative that you can't pull any highlight detail out of.

 

If you want to see what a density of 2.0 looks like; paint an area of 31,31,31 RGB into an sRGB colour space, along with an area of 206,206,206 RGB to represent 0.2D.

If you hold your negative against pure white on the same (calibrated) screen, you'll get a good idea of whether it's thinner or denser than ideal.

Edited February 28, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[AJG]

I like AJG's advice except for one thing. You should never put an exhaust fan in a dark room, it sucks in air from under the door and through all kinds of cracks and crevices, usually laden with dust. An inlet fan which can easily ben filtered is the way to fo.

I've worked in darkrooms for over 30 years with exhaust fans and filtered air intake with few dust problems, at least nothing that canned air and a cold light head on my enlarger couldn't cope with. I think we both agree that some air circulation is important. The big mistake that many people is not to allow for enough replacement air so that an exhaust fan can be effective. My wife suffered from low level carbon monoxide poisoning for a long time because the people who installed her exhaust fan system for her flame worked glass studio miscalculated how much intake air was required to really keep the carbon monoxide at a safe level. Carbon monoxide isn't a danger with photo chemicals, but without adequate ventilation a darkroom isn't a very pleasant place to work.

[Sandy Vongries]

Never had an issue with fumes from Black & White processes - color ( several varieties) quite a different proposition.

[Ricochetrider]

The 'ideal' negative has a maximum density under 2.0 in the highlights where you want some detail, and a minimum density of around 0.2 to 0.3 in the detailed shadows. Giving you a printable range of approximately 1.8D. Obviously there's some leeway that can be taken up by changing paper grade or by dodging and burning, but 1.8D from shadows to highlights is what to aim for.

 

To some people, such a negative might appear quite thin, since you can fairly easily see through a density of 2.0. However, it's better than having a thick and contrasty negative that you can't pull any highlight detail out of.

 

If you want to see what a density of 2.0 looks like; paint an area of 31,31,31 RGB into an sRGB colour space, along with an area of 206,206,206 RGB to represent 0.2D.

If you hold your negative against pure white on the same (calibrated) screen, you'll get a good idea of whether it's thinner or denser than ideal.

 

 

Thanks for the information, and for answering my question. I sent the negative to the printer. I actually think its Ok, but asked them to look at it and make a professional judgement on it.

[richardendress]

Ricochetrider, I would sure like to see the final print when you get it. Looked like an interesting negative.

[terrykelly]

Never had an issue with fumes from Black & White processes - color ( several varieties) quite a different proposition.

 

If someone is allergic, or becomes allergic, the proper way to vent the darkroom is to pressurize it so that dust etc gets blown OUT. That is not a new idea.

[Moving On]

You can clear the air with either exhaust or supply fan.

You simply have to filter what enters.

[Ricochetrider]

Ricochetrider, I would sure like to see the final print when you get it. Looked like an interesting negative.

 

Thank you for your interest.

I'll post a shot or scan of it once get the finished photo.

[Ricochetrider]

Ricochetrider, I would sure like to see the final print when you get it. Looked like an interesting negative.

 

OK I got the print back a couple days ago. Here's a shot of it, as requested. Kind of difficult to get a decent shot what with the glossy photo in a plastic wrapper and stuff . I set up my tripod with the print on the floor in a hallway, and set my digital camera's timer for 2 seconds. I would have removed the print from the wrapper but I noticed 2 cracks in it way up at the top edge, pretty far from the image, and I think maybe I've done this by handling the print n my excitement! Next time it comes out of the box & wrapper is going to be at the frame shop.

 

I wound up sending the negative out to Hidden Light LLC in Flagstaff AZ (USA). Of course the internet gives one more alternatives than one may need- these folks seemed to be a little on the high end of things, maybe- judging by the works they have posted, but I wanted this to be as nice as possible, and don't mind paying for the services of professionals. I am well pleased and after all it's only money. Someday, I'll have my own darkroom and workshop but until then...