Wet printing - not really easy?
 

Since now I've only scanned my film. When I tried to printing in darkroom, I quickly realized it requires completely different skills. What bugs me mostly is that frames scanning uniformly with lots of details require selective processing (dodging, burning) to have similar amount of details accross frame.

I've used only graded paper (everything medium) and have variable contrast paper + filters to try, but I don't think that changes this aspect of printing, it will affect contrast of whole frame, I suppose.

Yes, process is rewarding but it requires discipline to keep trying while easy alternatives are available (and while my skill are non-existant, I can't say my own prints are any better than lab-made, even if on color paper).

That said, developing film were much easier to get usable results, that's main conclusion.

VC paper should make more difference than you think. I started with wet processing (there was no alternative in those days) and as far as I'm concerned, a neg that prints easily 'wet' will also scan easily -- especially XP2. At a wild guess, you may be overdeveloping, so softer paper may help.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks for the hints - VC apper and overdeveloped negs. I'll try combinations of that and also with some conservatively exposed and developed negative.

It is not wrong to start with ungraded medium paper only - it will doubtlessly help in developing a tight discipline in negative exposure and development. But it can be frustrating if there are multiple variables that still need working on.

Personally I always start out with new film, paper, developer or after darkroom re-arrangements by doing test runs of grey scale wedges or test charts until I've identified and eliminated all my errors - sounds boring, but it is much faster and more successful than trying to figure out from a more complex negative where the flaws are. If you have doubts about your negative contrast, you might also want to get that sorted out before starting to print, i.e. by checking test chart shots on a (improvised) densitometer (see http://www.bobwheeler.com/photo/ZoneDigital.pdf on how to use a scanner for that).

Sevo

Wet printing is practice I think, like playing an instrument. Find a great wet print to compare your prints to, and if you've not seen a contrast key it is something that could be worth running. Same neg, printed at grade 0, grade 1/2, grade 1, grade 1 1/2 etc. up to grade 5. This is something that has helped many students of mine get a handle on both printing and getting their negatives right.

Dear Sevo,

Very much a matter of personality and preference, though. Frances is currently testing the new Ilford fine art paper, using known good negs (i.e. negs that have printed well before). Her view is that paper is made for prints, not test charts -- though she fully agrees with Mike Gristwood that 'the paper is refreshingly indifferent to what is printed on it', so there's no magic to using real negs instead of step wedges: it's just the way she prefers to do it.

Of course, her approach does rely on having known good negs to begin with.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, is a review of the new paper coming, BTW?

Hey btgc, it's good to hear that you are trying wet printing. Persist! You are correct that film developing is easier. It is more of a formula or recipe to follow. Wet printing requires more decisions and adjustments of settings from the operator because enlargers are all so different in light output and quality.

Like most things in life, simply doing something is easy enough, but doing it well takes effort and practice. Also, the more effort is involved in reaching a goal, the more rewarding and satisfying is the reaching of that goal. Persevere!

Thanks all for hints and support, especially Roger - VC paper IS different from graded, I mean, how it responds. I were able to get some evenly exposed prints.
I started with filter #2 and now, after I realized filter #5 requires exposure adjustment, will try them all. Also will try making test strips with piano-style test printer, should be easier than moving two paper sheets to expose certain part of paper.

printing with VC paper is much more easy than scanning negatives in my opinion.... splitgrade-printing is another "beast" but offers much better options in the final print!

the trick with using graded paper is having a negative which fits the paper scale. That is basically what all these hundreds of books about developing and personal film speeds are about. VC paper makes adjustment simpler but a well exposed and developed negative is really quite easy to get a good work print on graded or VC paper. After that any adjustments are for your personal creative satisfaction. Yes its hard to do and takes some pracatice but the rewards are very satisfying when you get it right.

Tip: Always develop print to completion. That means full time in developer. That way you will know that anything too light or dark is due to exposure time of print and not development not being complete. There is a very fine line to getting exposure time and contrast balanced so that you get a print which jumps off the paper.

A question for the experienced, would it make sense to contact-print a 4x5 BW negative as a first guess for right gradiation / exposure time of the paper ? (Given that the BW negative in question scans well already)

Not really, because an enlarger always introduces a flare factor (caused by light bouncing around inside the lens and bellows, and possibly even inside the darkroom itself) so both exposure and contrast for contact prints are likely to be different from an enlargement.

Of course, this assumes I've understood your question properly. What were you planning on doing after your 'first guess'?

Cheers,

R.

Probably not. For one, the enlarger would normally need to be raised higher for the contact print, which reduces the intensity of the light reaching the paper. If you were to make the effort to get the enlarger to the exact same height, you might as well leave the neg in the holder and just enlarge it. I have contact printed some of my 4x5 negs, but normally I'll enlarge on 8x10.

Thanks for the replies so far ! :)

My idea was to eliminate the height / lens / flare factor initially to only test for the correct paper graduation and then to adapt exposure for correct height of the enlarger, chosen aperture etc ...

Is the aim to save paper?

A contact print will match a projection print from a diffusion enlarge.

The projection from a condenser enlarger will have more contrast than a contact from the same machine. If you have a condenser, then make the contact with #3 filter, print with #2.

It is an almost perfect exposure tool if you put the enlarger head in the proper position to make the final print first, then make the contact at that height also.

I don't get why you'd want to do that...

Good wet printing requires years of daily practice.

Dear Ronald,

Not invariably. Mine doesn't, for a start. You must have a VERY low flare system, i.e. flare factor close to 1, but with many enlargers, a flare factor as high as 2 is not unknown.

Cheers,

R.

Unless of course you start your printing career by printing several hundred test prints a day. :-)

Thanks a lot ! That was what I wanted to know. :)

My intention is less to save paper but time and also trying to achieve some - personal - standards to simplify things.

Yes, but look at it this way.

The flare factor will ALWAYS reduce the contrast of the projected image, so you need a harder paper for a projected image than for a contact print (no loss of contrast via projection).

If the flare factor is close enough to 1, this will be trivial. The higher the flare factor, the greater the difference between the contrast you will get on the contact print and the contrast you will get in a projected image, i.e. the harder the paper you need for the projection print.

Cheers,

R.

Congratulations btqc on your move to analog prints. I made the decision last night that scanning was something I really hated, along w/ inkjet printers and their assorted papers and inks. So it's off to look for another enlarger, and I'm selling all my scanner & camera gear. With thousands of developed negs around here, all I really need is an olde folder for the odd shots, and my digital P&S to make my ads up with.

It must be rewarding to you now that you have taken charge of your images, and not simply farmed them out to a lab. As for the learning curve, you'll get it. I can draw quite well, but if I don't do it for a while it looks like stick figures. But give me half a day and it gets going in the right direction.

Roger,

thanks for pointing that out again. Now my idea is, given everything constant - enlarger, height (enlarging factor), used lens - then the flare factor should be constant and not change from print to print.