Shadow detail in Ilford papers

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread

I need suggestions about getting shadow detail in Ilford papers (Multigrade, and Gallerie). There's good detail in my negatives, and if I hold the prints up to the light to transilluminate it clearly shows plenty of details, but by reflected light everything looks the same blackness. Agfa papers show plenty of detail, but at times it is difficult to get, the surface is fragile, and they age so quickly that I'd like to use Ilford. I have been using Dektol or Ilford's Multigrade or Universal developers.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 26, 2000

Answers

Don't print the shadows so dark.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), July 26, 2000.

I'm glad to hear there's someone else out there who's had the same problems I've had with Agfa paper. I've asked about peeling emulsion in this venue previously and got replies blaming my technique, choice of chemistry, and who knows what else.

I keep wanting to go back to it however; it offers wonderful tone and detail.

-- Henry Friedman (friedlew@worldnet.att.net), July 26, 2000.


Sounds like you're printing the shadows too dark in order to get a solid black. More film exposure will move the shadows up off the toe area of the film's curve, thus gaining contrast, plus if your were to then give the same paper exposure for black the shadow detail would print lighter.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), July 26, 2000.

I second John Hicks's suggestion. Shoot at a lower exposure index but don't change anything else about your technique.

-- Don Karon (dkaron@socal.rr.com), July 26, 2000.

One other thing....

There's no need to print for "maximum black" as some advise. The usual result of that is the shadows being printed too dark.

The trick is to print so that what you want to appear as black looks black in the context of the entire print. This will often be far lighter than maximum black or the paper's D-Max.

If it looks black then it _is_ black.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), July 27, 2000.



You might also try printing your shadows with a higher filter than your highlights and midtones.

-- christopher Hargens (ldmr@cruzio.com), July 27, 2000.

As a last resort, if your negatives are too contrasty, you might try latent image bleaching, also known as a selective latent image manipulation technique (SLIMT). I've got a brief article about it on my site at unblinkingeye.com.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), July 28, 2000.

Thanks to everyone for your generous help. I had hoped to hear that using some different or exotic print developer (Ferral TCP, Amidol, etc.)would solve my problem. I guess the answer is to continue printing on those Agfa papers which seem to so nicely complement my present negatives (as long as they are available). For the next few weeks, I shall also make extra negatives at twice the exposure as suggested by many of you, and see it better matches them to Ilford papers. Again, Thanks for the help.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 28, 2000.

Ed B. what is the e-dress for your SLIMT article please? Thanks. Bill, instead of trying to increase your exposure index of the film, try not printing so dark and use a softer filter. If you can readily see detail on the film you should be able to print that detail. Are you sure it isn't a problem with your developing the film too long and having too high a contrast range for the paper? Most really good negs I see with light but visible shadow detail, but that print to dark in the shadows, are really just too contrasty because they were developed for too long. Cut back on the development. If you give too much exposure and develope for shadow detail you usually end up with too short a contrast neg which is worse. It loses detail in the midtones and becomes flat as a pancake. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 29, 2000.

Bill, I agree with james, increasing the exposure and decreasing development does not work for me, and giving twice the exposure, uuhh, I don't know.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), July 31, 2000.



I'm surprised no one has said anything about other developers. Dektol is good for somethings but you ought to try LPD. I think the manufacturer is Ethol... could be Edwal, but the developer is LPD (I remember someone corrected me on another forum but I have forgotten it)! Your tones will be more subtle and the gradations... :) Cheers

-- Scott Walton (scotlynn@shore.net), August 02, 2000.

Bill - You might want to try this to help you determine if there is really a problem with the way you are exposing and developing your negatives. Its a rather simple way of determining what grade your negatives are "asking" to be printed on. Select out a negative that you believe to be correct. Run a test strip and select the proper printing time by looking for the minimum exposure necessary to record proper texture in the highlight. Then, within that time on the strip - check to see if you also have a good black (meaning a black where the is suppose to be a black). If the answer is yes then check back in the next shortest time and see if there is also a black there. e.g. if the minimum time was say 10 seconds and you were using 2 seconds on each strip -check back in the 8 second area ) If there is a good black at 8 seconds - you are getting a good black before you are getting textured white - then the paper grade you have selected is too high. Now if this is the grade you want to be printing on then you are overdeveloping your negatives for this grade. Another advantage of using this method is that it eliminates alot of the need for burning in highlight areas.

-- jim megargee (jmegargee@nyc.rr.com), August 03, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ