Help, my b&w is TOO black and white

[Tim k]

I need some advice.

Its taken me a couple of years to reach this point, of having a decent negative printed and hung on the wall. I've been using hp5 in ilfosol3, and printing on ilfords rc mg, and mg fiber paper with the same color results, mainly due to local availability.

Here is my issue. I don't like it. Its just too black white and grey. I'm all analog, and would like to stay that way for a while. I suspect the solution is some sort of toner. But I really have no idea as to which way to move.

Ken Lee has a flower gallery that I think is just great. http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/index.html
Specifically one shot of a plant or some type of grass with drops of water has a "color" that I cant explain, but I like it a lot. http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/8.html

I have read on Kens site, where he converts a film scan to monochrome via software, but I prefer to stay all analog.

I sure would appreciate any opinions, or suggestions.

Thanks for your time.
Tim

[J Ney]

Could you post some scans of your prints? Perhaps it is an issue with your printing?? I'm having issues visualizing what you're talking about.

[Daniel_Buck]

you probably want to look into is "toning" your prints. I remember some good discussions on this with references to some good books to check out. Search and you will probably find them.

[srbphoto]

Are you saying they have too much contrast? It could be your metering and development. The tough thing is it may be your negative, printing or both!

Definitely get some prints up for us to see.

A suggestion: my favorite book on the subject is Ansel Adam's The Negative. I think it is an easy read and may help you with getting the results you are after. I am sure others here may have some other suggestions as well.

[percepts]

I know just what you mean. I see many many images that are too harsh. i.e. contrast is too hard. I would suggest you try some PMK developer or Pyrocat HD and go easy on the development time. You should get much smoother tonal transitions with those developers as they will hold back local contrast throughout the range as well as keeping main highlights under control.

[Darren Kruger]

I need some advice.

Its taken me a couple of years to reach this point, of having a decent negative printed and hung on the wall. I've been using hp5 in ilfosol3, and printing on ilfords rc mg, and mg fiber paper with the same color results, mainly due to local availability.


Which Ilford papers are you using? the normal or warmtone?

Which paper developer are you using? Have you tried other paper developers?

-Darren

[Greg Blank]

Ken's work is very nice. It takes a while (a life time) to achieve a specific style that connotes the "you". If one just gives another the answers, still the answer is usually missed. If you actually care about finding your own style and doing it using any method you will be less concerned about what and how others achieve the style they have. (That's my best advice take or not.)

That said; the choice of your developer and film have some bearing on what your imagery looks like, as well as paper printing and contrasts you are matching film to paper and contrast filters.

I would say you could get Kens look in many analog ways. You could use a warm tone paper. You could use Azo paper. You could make Platinum and or Pladium prints.....so many choices.





I need some advice.

Its taken me a couple of years to reach this point, of having a decent negative printed and hung on the wall. I've been using hp5 in ilfosol3, and printing on ilfords rc mg, and mg fiber paper with the same color results, mainly due to local availability.

Here is my issue. I don't like it. Its just too black white and grey. I'm all analog, and would like to stay that way for a while. I suspect the solution is some sort of toner. But I really have no idea as to which way to move.

Ken Lee has a flower gallery that I think is just great. http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/index.html
Specifically one shot of a plant or some type of grass with drops of water has a "color" that I cant explain, but I like it a lot. http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/8.html

I have read on Kens site, where he converts a film scan to monochrome via software, but I prefer to stay all analog.

I sure would appreciate any opinions, or suggestions.

Thanks for your time.
Tim

[Jordan]

I find the Ilford Warmtone fiber to be much better than the plain multigrade. I think that if you try Ilford Warmtone in a developer like TST then you might start to get what you are looking for in a print.

[Tim k]

Thanks guys, I did try to upload a couple of pictures, long story short I failed. So I uploaded a couple of scans on a cheap office multifunction machine and tried to get them as real as possible in lightroom. So I don't know how meaningful they will be but the color is pretty close to what they are. Here is a link to my smug mug site http://tim-k.smugmug.com/gallery/10126902_tUoik#696022727_VbEGv ok never mind I think I got it figured out.

I am using plain paper, not warm tone. The only paper developer I've ever used is PQ Universal from Ilford.

I understand the "lifetime to find my thing" because its taken me a couple of years to get a print. And I certainly do not want to copy someone else's style, but rather I'm looking for a nudge in the right direction.

I don't think its a contrast thing, however the shot with the headlight was rather tough, lots of chrome in the harsh sun. In hindsight, I think it could have spent a bit more time on the enlarger, and a little less contrast. But its the color that I'm having an issue with.

The consensus seems to be towards a warm tone paper, and I'm all over that idea. And while I have found fiber a little more difficult to work with, I'm ok with the fiber, if it will tone better. If after looking at my scans, you guys think toning is the way to go, any suggestions as to which product. I've been reading and looking over Freestyles website, and honestly I'm a little befuddled.

I hate to open the developer choice issue, but I'm open to that as well, if it gets me going in the right direction.

Thanks again
Tim

[Tim k]

Ok, this is going to sound stupid, but here goes. I just opened the thumbnails, and they look better on my monitor than the prints in my hand. I dont know how to explain it, but I framed a couple of them with white mats with black frames, and they just look grey, hanging there on the wall.

[Greg Blank]

Your printing is not bad, the paper exhibits a flatness in the highlights. Perhaps its a bit old or the paper is being slightly fogged. You can remove the greenish color I see with selenium.




Thanks guys, I did try to upload a couple of pictures, long story short I failed. So I uploaded a couple of scans on a cheap office multifunction machine and tried to get them as real as possible in lightroom. So I don't know how meaningful they will be but the color is pretty close to what they are. Here is a link to my smug mug site http://tim-k.smugmug.com/gallery/10126902_tUoik#696022727_VbEGv ok never mind I think I got it figured out.

I am using plain paper, not warm tone. The only paper developer I've ever used is PQ Universal from Ilford.

I understand the "lifetime to find my thing" because its taken me a couple of years to get a print. And I certainly do not want to copy someone else's style, but rather I'm looking for a nudge in the right direction.

I don't think its a contrast thing, however the shot with the headlight was rather tough, lots of chrome in the harsh sun. In hindsight, I think it could have spent a bit more time on the enlarger, and a little less contrast. But its the color that I'm having an issue with.

The consensus seems to be towards a warm tone paper, and I'm all over that idea. And while I have found fiber a little more difficult to work with, I'm ok with the fiber, if it will tone better. If after looking at my scans, you guys think toning is the way to go, any suggestions as to which product. I've been reading and looking over Freestyles website, and honestly I'm a little befuddled.

I hate to open the developer choice issue, but I'm open to that as well, if it gets me going in the right direction.

Thanks again
Tim

[Tim k]

Green? That must be a scan/monitor thing. I sure don't see any green in the prints. But there is something different about the color of the thumbnails.

[Jon Shiu]

Hi, I would experiment with toning to get a richer looking print. A very light sepia toning, with a short/diluted bleaching step often works well. Another type of toning to try is selenium , which deepens the blacks and changes the normal tint from the slight green, to slight purple. If you need more details, let me know. (You usually don't see the greenish color unless put next to the toned print).

Jon

[J Ney]

OK... alot of this maybe from my monitor not being calibrated the right way and I'm putting on my "very critical" hat but these would be my suggestions... I always try to make sure the technique is sound before messing with the chemicals and I don't see anything wrong with the chemicals or paper you're using.

ISSUE: Not enough texture in the highlights. Would suggest "pre-flashing" your paper. Refer to the aforementioned The Negative for the technique but this should help bring down the highlights without messing with the darker areas too much but leave the specular highlights as they are.

Are you doing edge burning? This should become second nature and it doesn't look like it was done on the 1st image.

Other than that, it looks like your shadows are a bit too light... I'm not sure what your equipment is, but - if you are using a spotmeter - you should meter off of the darkest area and then increase by 2 stops. If this is pretty much what you are doing, then I think you should re-examine the speed at which you are shooting your film.

Regarding paper, that is a really personal decision... if you're looking for more color, then warmtone paper toned in Se is really nice.

I'm still learning about toning and I'm planning on picking up the book "The Definitive Toning Guide" or something like that by T. Rudman. It is not printed any more but I'm trying to find it on the used market. Supposedly it has a great description of different toning techniques.

Just my 2 cents.
-J

[Tim k]

Jon, I am leaning towards trying some toning, thanks. Very nice website by the way.

J, There were no printing manipulation, just a straight timed print, on both shots. I'm more of a stick and rock landscape guy, so this roll of film was a little bit out of character for me, with all the chrome in the sun. I agree about missing highlights, after looking at the print a while, it did seem a little light overall.

Thanks

[Marco Milazzo]

I'm surprised that no one has quoted the old saying "Exposure controls density; development controls contrast." In other words, if you want to lower contrast, reduce development. Often you need to increase exposure to adjust densities.

I'd start by shooting a few frames of a contrasty subject like the automobile at say 1/3rd of the stated ISO, (thus overexposing), and reducing development by say, 25 percent. This is just a starting place, but is should indicate if you're getting near your goal.

Choice of developer may also have an efect. I'd avoid HC-110 in favor of D-76 or such.

[J Ney]

I wouldn't consider pre-flashing as print manipulation in the same sense as burning / dodging... it is only managing the limitations of paper.

Agree with Marco about making test exposures to make sure your development is on target but - based on your shadows - I think it may be the exposure that is a bit off.

[Tim Meisburger]

I'm no expert, but it looks very cold to me, and if that is the problem, you would probably like the image better printed on a warm paper. I would give that a try first, as it is the easiest to check, but I am certainly no expert...

[Sascha Welter]

Tim, a monitor emits light, so basically looking at a picture on a monitor is slightly more equivalent to looking at a projected slide than looking at a print. The light source makes the picture more "sparkling". That's part of the reason why people like their digital point-and-shoots: They look at their pix on glowing monitors and don't look for sharpness or other "quality" issues.

Some wild guesses:

Maybe you have to look closer at the highlights of your prints. It could be that you are leaving too much density in the highlights: There really should be some areas that are absolutely white, to the degree of the unexposed paper. Large areas of blown out highlights don't work for me though to give that sparkle. A white spike inside some denser gray areas works best for me.

Another thing is presenting of the images: If the paper you present the print on is whiter than the base of the print, the print will often look a bit dull. That's why some people put their stuff on black - though personally I think that's way too much. But a slightly more off-color presentation carton can do some good.

I used to selenium tone some prints years back. I like the extra blacks I got, but had to adjust to the selenium toner making the picture darker overall. It sure made the print "pop" more though. Selenium toner doesn't have the "oh, we're doing vintage now" look of some toners like sepia (no offense meant to any sepia-users around, present persons excluded etc. etc.).

[Ken Lee]

Tim, here is a nice article (http://www.wynnwhitephoto.com/toning.html) on Toning by Winn White. I have tried some of the methods, and they work.

I think the magic for me, if I were to return to making Silver Prints (which I might) would be to combine different toning methods to control color.

I have also made Pt/Pd prints, and while I liked the color range, I wasn't crazy about the low range of density or DMax. I experimented with different methods of coating, but always wondered if my coatings were less archival than the Pt/Pd prints underneath them. I hope to return to these investigations some day when I get time.

All things being equal, I'd still rather have a Silver or Pt/Pd print than an inkjet print.

Another process worth investigating, is Carbon printing. Sandy King has written extensively about it, and from what I have read, there is much control over image color.

[Toyon]

I don't think the issue in your photography is toning. It is lack of midtone expression. I suggest you switch to FP4+ and use xtol 1:1 for development. Be sure that you don't overdevelop your negatives. Start with 7' at 68 degrees and see how that works out. Once you gain an increase in midtone breadth and subtlety your prints will assume a much less stark graphical b&w look. Only then, should you experiment with toners. It is a good idea to switch to warmtone paper immediately, however.

[Nathan Potter]

I'm guessing that the brightness range of your subjects is very wide. Metallic objects are a tough item to obtain a wide range of detail. You need to get the all the detail in the negative, preferably within a logD 1.5. Focus on this before the toning exercises. For extreme brightness ranges you might explore divided development such as implemented in Diafine or other divided types.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Tim k]

Another thing is presenting of the images: If the paper you present the print on is whiter than the base of the print, the print will often look a bit dull.

Sascha, you might be very close to part of my issue. I used a white mat, that is quite white. I really did not like the color, but it came with a frame, and I thought what the heck.

Thanks

[Tim k]

Ken, I will read the article, thanks.
I ran across the carbon printing tutorial, that I think was by Sandy King, a while ago. It sounded pretty trick. As I read step 1, then step 2 and then step 3, I thought I could do this. But when I got to step 32 I thought, OMG, I think I was lost about step 15. I think its still about 6 ft above my head at the moment.

[Tim k]

Toyon, I've been wanting to switch to Xtol, but for some reason I've been sticking to what was local and easy. Two days ago, I actually picked up some FP4, perhaps this is a good time to make the switch.
Thanks

[Darin Boville]

Ok, this is going to sound stupid, but here goes. I just opened the thumbnails, and they look better on my monitor than the prints in my hand. I dont know how to explain it, but I framed a couple of them with white mats with black frames, and they just look grey, hanging there on the wall.

What is the light level on the wall where they are hanging? I find many (most? all?) prints to be quite touchy regarding illumination levels.

--Darin

[Tim k]

They are in a small room, with lots of artificial light, and a small window. That may be what makes the white mats so bright.

[Brian Ellis]

A print can't be judged on a monitor, they two entirely different mediums. And they certainly differ from one person's monitor to the next. So I wouldn't make any radical changes in what you're doing based on suggestions here because you have no idea what anyone here is seeing on his or her monitor.

On my monitor your prints look very good. On the basis of your verbal description I was expecting to see something with blocked up shadows and highlights and little in between (i.e. way too much contrast) because that's what I think of when someone says their prints are too black and too white. But yours don't look that way at all on my monitor, they have very nice tonal gradations from accent blacks to bright but not blocked up highlights.

But if you don't like them and think they look too black and white then you could try reducing the development time for your negatives by about 15% and/or using a lower contrast setting on your adjustable enlarger head or a lower contrast filter on your enlarger if you're using filters. If those things don't give you the look you're after then you could try more radical changes.

[Tim k]

Thanks Brian, thats the nicest thing I've heard today.

I do agree about the monitor judgment thing. You take this paper thing in your hand, and squirt it with some light and turn it into electricity, then send it over this wire, where it goes half way around the world, then, gets reconverted into someone else's version of electricity. It is a little hard to form an accurate opinion.

That said, thank you everyone for your thoughts, and opinions. They all are very much appreciated.

I plan to order some warm fiber paper, work on my technique, and noodle with some toners, to see where it leads me.

[percepts]

Thanks Brian, thats the nicest thing I've heard today.

I do agree about the monitor judgment thing. You take this paper thing in your hand, and squirt it with some light and turn it into electricity, then send it over this wire, where it goes half way around the world, then, gets reconverted into someone else's version of electricity. It is a little hard to form an accurate opinion.

That said, thank you everyone for your thoughts, and opinions. They all are very much appreciated.

I plan to order some warm fiber paper, work on my technique, and noodle with some toners, to see where it leads me.

I will repeat. Noodle with some staining developers. That won't change print colour but it will change the "look" of your print significantly.

[al olson]

Tim,

You are receiving some excellent suggestions. There are many variables from the way you expose and develop your negative and similarly for the print. In addition are the choices of film and paper selection.

I, too, find your highlights a little blown out. My preference would be to get more texture into the highlights with a less harsh spectral spike.

The information that seems to be missing, and which no one else has addressed, is which contrast grade are you using. It appears to me that you are printing at a grade 4 or higher. Have you tried a grade 1 or 1/2? If a lower grade makes a significant difference, then test some of the grades in between to find the best result.

[Greg Blank]

I am kind of curious about this statement, I've seen several people comment that the highlights are appearing blown out, I was wondering if you use a calibrated monitor and
are judging the image based on that? If so what system of calibration are you using?




Tim,

I, too, find your highlights a little blown out. My preference would be to get more texture into the highlights with a less harsh spectral spike.

[al olson]

No, Greg, I have never calibrated my monitor. I have been able to get consistent results between my scanner and my monitor and between my monitor and my printer without messing with the calibration.

The enclosed photo is one that I have printed in the darkroom and also printed digitally with comparable results. It was exposed on a Linhof Color using Portra 160. The spectral highlights on the vase are narrow and reasonably tight, as I want them to be. I hope that it shows that way on other monitors.

Tim's highlights were much broader bands of white, which I interpret were that way on his print, hence his complaint.

[Bruce A Cahn]

Toning can be more than silenium or sepia. I used to tone selectively, with a brush. That makes using more than one toner on a print possible. There was or is a warm toned B&W paper by Oriental Seagull that toned the print a mixture of reds and blues, separate from each other, in silenium, on one print. I am sorry I never had the time to get into it more. The fumes from sepia toner will fog unused B&W paper, so keep it sealed and elsewhere.

[Tim k]

I will repeat. Noodle with some staining developers. That won't change print colour but it will change the "look" of your print significantly.

I'm not sure I understand. From my understanding of what I've read, the purpose of a toner is to change the color. Am I missing something obvious?

[Tim k]

Al,
I just checked my notes. The Dodge grill was printed without any filtration, and the shot that has the blown out highlights was with a #3 filter in place.

In hind site, I'm afraid I made a bad choice of shots to post. I agree that the highlights were too light. What I was trying to represent, was the color, or lack thereof. They are black white and grey, ok, duh, its black and white. What I was trying to get to is the look of some prints where there is a hint of green or brown or something in between.

[al olson]

I am sorry, I was thinking that you wanted to move your blacks and whites more into the mid tones. A further suggestion then, and you may already have this in mind.

For these subjects, my preference would be to use a split tone sepia technique. Bleach the print about 50%, rinse, and then place it in the sepia bath. I think this would give a nice, historical look to these old vehicle prints.

The split tone technique retains the rich dark blacks and gives the image a more chocolate color, depending on the papers that you are using. I use the Kodak sepia chemicals with cold toned RC paper. Split toning also retains more contrast than you would have by doing a 100% bleach.

If you are not familiar with it, Tim Rudman has published an excellent toning guide titled: The Photographer's Toning Book. The book provides excellent examples of the results you can obtain via the different toning techniques. I have found it to be an invaluable resource.

[percepts]

I'm not sure I understand. From my understanding of what I've read, the purpose of a toner is to change the color. Am I missing something obvious?
warmtone paper or toner will not reduce harshness. Since you used Kens web examples as your example goal I will refer to them. Firstly as I understand it, Ken now generally prints digitally and has stated as much. Also stated that he likes the control he gets from digital manipulation.
You should know that scanning a print and downsizing can and does, if done a certain way, give the smooth look you see in Kens web images. That doesn't mean his actual prints aren't like that but I'm assuming you want that look in your prints so here is why a staining developer will help. (Ken uses staining developers (Pyrocat HD I think) ).

Staining developers such as PMK and Pyrocat HD tend to hold back the highlights so that they print easily. But what people always seem to forget is that when we talk about highlights, we also have local contrast in the whole image where there are brighter edges, even in darker areas of the print. Staining developers will smooth out those local contrast areas too. This is one of the main reasons they give such a subtle look to a print. The tonal transitions are smoother. i.e. less harsh. Thats is why I say you should try these developers.
By all means use a warmtone paper but before you do, you should aim for the best quality negative as a starting point for your goal. And if your goal is for that smoothness of tonal transition that you see in Kens web images, then you will be aided by using staining developers.

[Tim k]

, you should aim for the best quality negative as a starting point for your goal.

Agreed. I am officially going to add a pyro developer to my do do list.

[Tim k]

Thanks Al, Tims book must be a very nice $$ book. Amazon was very proud of it. I think I'll need to keep an eye out on the used market. By the way, I enjoyed your website, you have put a lot of time into it.

[percepts]

Agreed. I am officially going to add a pyro developer to my do do list.

Stained negs also have a reputation for masking grain and the grain pattern can give an image a "coarse" look. But with 4x5 grain is not usually an issue although stained negs do seem to reduce coarsness. They just give the print a "that look" which I think is what you after with a little warmth added to by use of of warmtone paper.
I think using print developer more diluted than recommended can help with warm tone papers. You should not need to go to toner for just straight warmth in a print. But you can if you want to play...

[Jon Shiu]

Hi, for examples of toning, you may want to look at prints by Michael Kenna, Roman Loranc, Willliam Scott, Paul Kozal and others. I sometimes use sepia toning on Ilford MGIV to bring richness to the gray midtones that sometimes are a bit blah and lifeless without toning.

Jon

[Ken Lee]

"What I was trying to represent, was the color, or lack thereof. They are black white and grey, ok, duh, its black and white. What I was trying to get to is the look of some prints where there is a hint of green or brown or something in between".

Some of us have no enduring attraction to truly neutral B&W images. Toning - even a little - usually adds depth and impact to an image. Perhaps the brain processes information from the Rods (b&w), differently than from the Cones (color)... who knows ?

A great paper I miss from the 1970's was Agfa Brovira, a warm-toned paper which when toned in Selenium, gave rich cool blacks and golden high values, something like you see here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/23.html). To see the same photo in neutral black and white, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/23a.html).

[Tim k]

Ken,
Those two prints show exactly the point I was trying to get at.

[sun of sand]

Sounds like Tim just wants some color
Try brown toner
I like brown toner and I like it better when use selenium after the brown

[Ken Lee]

Even a little toning can have an effect.

[Tim Meisburger]

Thanks Ken for posting the with and without toning images. That's incredibly helpful in getting a sense of what toning can do, and in this case I would say it added immensely to the luminosity of the flowers.

I once tried to get people to post the same image printed on different papers so I could get a sense of the look of each, but everyone said that scanners and monitors were not sensitive enough to pick up the difference. But its easy to see the difference toning makes.

[Ken Lee]

If you have a calibrated monitor, and you use a browser that supports embedded ICC profiles, you should be able to see the image exactly as intended. *

To my knowledge, the only browsers which support embedded profiles, are based on the WebKit rendering engine.

On Windows, that includes Safari and Google Chrome.

On Mac, that includes Safari and OmniWeb, and another one from Japan whose name I can't recall.

Dunno about any available on Unix or Linux, unless these others have been ported.

To see this in action, go to http://www.gballard.net/psd/srgbforwww.html

* The alternative, is to make sure that all your web images are saved in the sRGB color space - which is what other browsers use.

[Marko]

You can also try split-toning if you fee like it. You can do it traditionally or digitally. This is a digital example:

[Tim k]

Ken and Marko, as dumb as this is going to sound, my first thought is you guys have been digging in my trash?? How the heck?? Guess I got tunnel vision thinking about this little piece of paper.

I looked at your versions and thought that they looked the same as mine. Then I looked back at mine. Wow, your both right. Mine sucks.

I'm expecting the big brown truck this week, with some smelly chems, and new paper. I will report back with my results.

[Ken Lee]

Hey - A (free) plugin lets (free) Firefox Browser support embedded ICC color profiles... finally !

See https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6891

I tried it. It works !

[percepts]

Hey - A (free) plugin lets (free) Firefox Browser support embedded ICC color profiles... finally !

See https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6891

I tried it. It works !

Whats the point? Most people won't have colour managed browsers so why make things difficult by not using sRGB. Most peoples monitors won't be correctly colour managed and even if they were, most peoples monitors aren't capable of Adobe RGB gamut. So the best policy for web display still remains to convert to sRGB before saving for web and work in that space if thats where your image will end up. That way most people will see something similar to what you see. Only similar because their setup will be different from your setup. i.e. it is futile trying to colour manage to the nth degree for web output.

[Donald Miller]

Tim,
Where in Arizona are you located? I won't even try to suggest what you should do based upon a monitor presentation...that leaves too many variables that could amount to you meaning oranges while everyone is talking about apples. Rod at Photomark in Phoenix would be a good resource for you.
Donald Miller

[Darren Kruger]

Hey - A (free) plugin lets (free) Firefox Browser support embedded ICC color profiles... finally !

See https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6891

I tried it. It works !

According to this page (http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/color-correction/), Firefox first added support for embedded ICC profiles for images in v3.0 but it was disabled by default. It was enabled in v3.5 by default so you shouldn't need the plugin if you are running the latest version.

-Darren

[Ken Lee]

Darren - You're right !

Thanks !

[percepts]

You should be looking at the following page if you want know if your browser is colour managed...

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

[Andrew O'Neill]

Tim,

How long have you been using HP5? You shouldn't pass up on it just yet. You really should stick with one film and work the hell out of it by trying different developers. A good conventional developer for this film is D76 and Xtol both diluted 1+1. Eventually you might want to try a staining developer like pyrocat-HD.
I sometimes us Ilford MG fibre papers, and have had great results.

[Marko]

Ken and Marko, as dumb as this is going to sound, my first thought is you guys have been digging in my trash?? How the heck?? Guess I got tunnel vision thinking about this little piece of paper.

Tim, it's very simple with Web - if you can see it, you can get it. Actually, by the time you see it, you already got it.

From there, it was a two minute job of creating two custom gradient layers, saving the image for web and uploading it back to the forum. Ok, maybe five minutes altogether with writing the follow-up post.

:)


I'm expecting the big brown truck this week, with some smelly chems, and new paper. I will report back with my results.

Please do. If you get tired of breathing fumes and decide to try it the clean and fast way (Photoshop), just ask. I'll be happy to show you a couple of methods, including the one I mentioned above.

Good luck,

Marko

[Ken Lee]

You should be looking at the following page if you want know if your browser is colour managed...

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

Thanks !!

[BOSS565]

Your room lighting will make a difference on how photographs look. Fluorescent light bulbs come in warm and cold temperatures for example. Try looking at your photos in different lighting environments.

[Tim k]

Tim,
Where in Arizona are you located? I won't even try to suggest what you should do based upon a monitor presentation...that leaves too many variables that could amount to you meaning oranges while everyone is talking about apples. Rod at Photomark in Phoenix would be a good resource for you.
Donald Miller

I'm down in Tucson. I've met Rod, and your right. Evil genius salesman. Talking to him can be, and has been expensive. Don't get up to the big city very often, but when I do, I like to stop in.

Agreed, about the monitor. I'm all about a piece of paper in my hand.

[Tim k]

Tim,

How long have you been using HP5? You shouldn't pass up on it just yet. You really should stick with one film and work the hell out of it by trying different developers. A good conventional developer for this film is D76 and Xtol both diluted 1+1. Eventually you might want to try a staining developer like pyrocat-HD.
I sometimes us Ilford MG fibre papers, and have had great results.

I agree, about sticking to a film. I'm still learning and don't need more variables to foul me up. I wanted to buy locally, so I started out with TMX and TMY, cause thats what the local guys had in stock. Got my testing all done, then the bozos at the shop switched from Kodak to Ilford, and Fuji. So, I have just a few months of hp5 under my belt. I did order some Xtol, in fact it just arrived today, so I haven't had a chance to try it yet. Pyro, is next on the list, but its a ways off.

[PViapiano]

Always use fiber paper, tones and bleaches better than RC.

Try toning with thiocarbamide (non-smelly) and selenium as well, and even the two together sequentially...you'll be in like Flint.

And dig Jon Shiu's recommendation to look at toned prints every chance you get. The fellows he recommended are the plum place to start.

Oh, and regarding toning...subtlety is where it's at.

[percepts]

Well I'd suggest that you start by using warmtone papers and dilute developers because you can get an awful lot of tone in a print without resorting to the additional process of toning. Toning should be done judiciously to achieve what is not achievable through normal development.
i.e. learn what is capable from paper / developer combinations before jumping to toning. Not suggesting you shouldn't tone but I don't think you need it to get to where you want to be. But if you want green prints then maybe you do.

[Tim k]

PViapiano, Thanks, fiber it is, came in yesterday. I did enjoy the websites Jon recommended, just wish I could see the real thing hanging on a wall.

percepts, my current plan is to stick with hp5. Switch over to Xtol 1:1 and live with the pair for a while. If along the way, a print or two should fall in to some toner, it probably wouldn't derail the train on the way to the end goal.

[jazzypantz]

I need some advice.

Its taken me a couple of years to reach this point, of having a decent negative printed and hung on the wall. I've been using hp5 in ilfosol3, and printing on ilfords rc mg, and mg fiber paper with the same color results, mainly due to local availability.

Here is my issue. I don't like it. Its just too black white and grey. I'm all analog, and would like to stay that way for a while. I suspect the solution is some sort of toner. But I really have no idea as to which way to move.

Ken Lee has a flower gallery that I think is just great. http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/index.html
Specifically one shot of a plant or some type of grass with drops of water has a "color" that I cant explain, but I like it a lot. http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/8.html

I have read on Kens site, where he converts a film scan to monochrome via software, but I prefer to stay all analog.

I sure would appreciate any opinions, or suggestions.

Thanks for your time.
Tim

Too black and white? Are you meaning that the contrast of your images are too high? I've had this problem also, but I don't mind mixing analog and digital. So, if I'm unsure about the exposure in shooting, I shoot a decent exposure and save it later in PS.

But, to keep it all analog, have you considered using filters in the darkroom? Are you familiar with split-filtering (a more advanced way of controlling contrast in analog prints that allows for more control of tones)?

[Tim k]

Thanks for the quick response, "he said with a little smile",

I did come grips with my printing issues, back about 2011 or so.

[Lenny Eiger]

I sure would appreciate any opinions, or suggestions.

Thanks for your time.
Tim

You have two issues. First, it is a very contrasty subject. Second, you are simply developing the film too long. There is no big technology to deal with here, but the difference between your work and Ken's is considerable in the contrast area. The developer won't matter that much, its just the length of time you leave it in there.

There are better developers, and better film, IMO. (Delta 100 and Xtol or Pyro.) But first get yourself a softer neg...

Lenny

[Colin Robertson]

Tim K- what was your issue? I get the impession you were just using a paper that didn't suit you. Something like Ilford warmtone or Kentona was what you needed. Or, a toner like dilute Viradon. Having seen a thread-from-the-dead, what was the outcome?!?

[C_Remington]

Your style looks like it would lend itself well to Lith Printing.