Underestimated Dry-Down Effect - worked to my advantage

[Bill Burk]

Last night I made some 11x14 prints of a shot from "Red Cones" near "Reds Meadow" that I wanted to share, to illustrate what can be taken near "Thousand Island Lake." I had made a contact print the day before and it looked good wet, it was on the drying screens when I went in to print the enlargements - I didn't even refer to it at first. I had made the contact print with the same height and focus, so flare and optics would be the main difference between contact and enlargement. I made test strips with the same base exposure as my contact print, and selected the same time from the test strip because it looked like a reasonable straight interpretation.

I made an 11x14 and while it was in the fix, I concluded the first print was too light and I chided myself for not making a test strip with exposure above and beyond the expected. I always preach "Lootens" on this so I felt a bit stupid for not having gone over. I pulled out the dry contact print (with test step wedge in the margin) and found that the contact print was rich and full bodied while the print in the fixer was light and weak.

So I did my usual "what you got" and "what you want it to be" comparison of the "Red Cone" earth and decided that a full stop or at least 2/3 stop more exposure was required. Again, not listening to my own teaching, I opened up a stop, backed the time down 1/3 stop and made a full 11x14. (The teaching I didn't listen to was never to make a big change on a full print, do another test strip). Whoa, this one is rich and full-bodied but over the top, too dark.

I made one more 11x14, 1/3 stop less exposure. This time, the print in the fix looked weak and I could barely make out the distant mountain - a tiny feature that looked better on the darkest print.

In the wash I concluded to myself that I didn't nail it, the distant mountain "needed" the darkest time and the rest of the print "needed" to be slightly lighter than the darkest print.

All set to take another stab at it today. Then I looked at the three prints on the drying screens.

Dry-down came to my rescue. The darkest print is the "odd duck out" and the two lightest prints are both acceptable. The distant mountain came down. The print I like best is the one in the middle. When they were wet, I fully expected to reject all three.

[ROL]

Can we see all three?

[Bill Burk]

Sure, ROL.

Actually I was thinking of your standards while grappling with the idea to remake or not.

I probably will remake with your suggestions and any others who want to join in.

All the prints so far have been on Galerie 2.

The three prints are still wet. Meanwhile here is the contact print. The big splotch in the sky is NOT on the neg.

Tiny black spots are in the sky. They appear on the first (lightest) enlargement. But I opaqued out several spots for the next two.

It will require spotting back in on the finished prints. I will show them first before and then after spotting.

The opaque job is ugly and ineffective. I am going to wipe opaque off and more carefully spot out again before the negative goes back in the enlarger.

Also note, the distant mountain merges with sky on the contact print - onscreen matches print - ridge line really is barely visible on the contact print. This ridge line is more visible on all the enlargements. On the darkest enlargement that distant mountain really sings. My greatest motivation to reprint comes from that. Since it looks "just right" on that darkest print, I literally could just burn it in 1/3 stop and be done with it.

The only manipulation I did so far was dodge the skies on the enlargements 1/3 stop to 2/3 stop. This is a straight/raw contact print.

[Bernice Loui]

Might want to try microwave dry a washed print to gauge the areas of significant interest (yes, make a full size print and tear the print down to the areas of interest and put them in the microwave for a quick dry) to get a better idea of what effects dry down will have on the print.

Dry down can be so deceptive as what looks good enough in the wash tray or print washer will become too dark once the print is dry.


Bernice

[Bill Burk]

Might want to try microwave dry a washed print...

Thanks Bernice,

I'd resisted this idea for a long time, just because I was so self-assured that I could predict dry-down. I can be really good at looking at a wet print, knowing it's "hot" and trusting it will dry down. But this one tricked me a lot.

I think it is time for the microwave!

[Doremus Scudder]

Thanks Bernice,

I'd resisted this idea for a long time, just because I was so self-assured that I could predict dry-down. ...

I know Zone VI used to make their drydown timer for this reason. The thinking was that once one determined the percentage of drydown, you could just dial in the percentage of reduced exposure after making your best wet print.

I found that this did not work at all. The subjective differences drydown makes, especially in the highlights, feels and works differently depending on the subject and the distribution of important tonalities.

Although it seems arduous, I dry all my prints before making an evaluation for subsequent print exposure changes and manipulations. Fortunately, I do most of my printing in the summer, so I can just walk outside into the heat and sunshine; the print dries in just a few minutes in direct sun and low humidity. I then take them back into the darkroom, tape them up on the bulletin board and view them under "display lighting" (my approximation of how I like to have my prints lit in the gallery) before making another print. I find the time spent doing this actually helps me save paper. My maxim is, "waste time, not paper."

Then there's the changes that happen during toning that one has to (try and) plan for... but that's another thread.

Best,

Doremus

[ROL]

I got standards?!? (...well more for myself than anyone else)

I only asked (to see your work) because I am unclear what you were going for by your description alone. It seemed like some kind of show and tell (or more correctly tell without show) giving your particular dry down experience, and I was interested in your discoveries. I really have no intention of critiquing others' work (and nothing to gain – I don't participate in the critique forums), except in the broadest possible sense.

Be that as it may, if dry down experience is the question (as others have taken it), I will offer the following. IMO, dry down becomes much less of an issue as one gets to know their own lab, and as real as the physical swelling of the emulsion may be and the glistening wetness of the print's surface may deceive, it always seems to pay dividends to let the print dry overnight, and mock mount it on one's usual flavor (or some reasonable facsimile) of board, before arriving at a final exposures. Maybe it's just the kind of subject I specialize in, but I need time out of the darkroom where I can take it all in and experience as many of the print's elements as dispassionately as possible (i.e., not rushing to finish the print before the developer goes off, or because I'm getting tired). Dry down, as I've mostly experienced it, weighs far down the list on more important issues of the interplay of light, form, and local and overall contrast in the print as a whole. This all plays into my general printing scheme of "editions", where after a suitable proof is selected, I print appropriate sizes from smallest to largest, making adjustments as I go, spending as much as a week with a negative. None are perfect, by any standard, but all are unique and reflective of the size at which they are printed.

...and yes, I did use a microwave for a short period of time as I got to know my DR. It soon became superfluous.

[ic-racer]

My darkroom microwave broke about 15 years ago and I have been using an old canvas type 'print dyer' and it is just about as fast to dry a test strip.
In my darkroom the perfect print usually looks too dark in the developer and too light in the wash water.

[Bill Burk]

My darkroom microwave broke about 15 years ago and I have been using an old canvas type 'print dyer' and it is just about as fast to dry a test strip.
In my darkroom the perfect print usually looks too dark in the developer and too light in the wash water.

I hauled the canvas print dryer to the dump after I made a set of screens. I figured I'd never want to be tempted by it again. It was nice to use, but I was convinced I would contaminate prints by it. Didn't think about proofing.

[Bill Burk]

I got standards?!? (...well more for myself than anyone else)

I would say you lead by example. I respect your opinion, and I hope to hear what you have to say about my puzzle.