I'm trying to learn how to work shadow's character when printing.
I'd like to know if it's better to compress the shadows by placing them in the toe of the film, or if its better to give more exposure and then placing them in the shoulder of the paper, or burning on it...
I found this is easy to do it digitally with Photoshop, but I found it way more complicated in the darkroom.
Give the negative more exposure or use a softer grade of paper.
Ok, I understand... so if I'm also going to reduce the general scene contrast with a softer paper grade it's better to place shadows in the toe.Originally Posted by Luis-F-S
While if I'm going to increase the general scene contrast with a paper higher grade then it's better to place shadows in the linear part of the curve...
So also it also dependes on film processing N+/-, delivered contrast index...
Thanks !!!
It's on of those 'Rome wasn't built in a day situations'
If you spend a lot of time using one film, you begin to get a feel for what the results of you changes in exposure will be. If you work with one paper.... You begin to see what those shadows look like on paper. That doesn't take into account the light in the scene. If you consider the light in the scene, the exposure, the printing paper....& then add development...those are a lot of variables to juggle. I would make a bunch of negatives at normal development time to see what range you have there with your chosen materials, and then look at what variations of development will give you
Thanks for your explanation. I understand that there are a lot of control variables that interact... I've BTZS calibrated films (TMX, HP5) and paper (MG IV, for now), this gives a lot of information,
but it's time to do what you point about bracketing exposure and development, and then see how those negatives can be worked.
Until now I was scanning, but I soon realized that printing in the darkroom requires additional skills on the film side
I found scanning+photoshop was useful to learn what was the target... but then comes that adjusting the tonal response in the darkroon it's another war, say art.
From a practical standpoint, if you compress the shadows during exposure, that's like a one-way street. Not a versatile negative. But if the neg has good separation in the shadows to begin with, you can always modify the result printing, any number of ways. In other words, overexposing the film a bit is generally more helpful than underexposing it. Shadow separation occurs when the exposure is boosted up onto the straight line portion of the film, rather than remaining on the toe; but different types of film differ on how far down the scale this begins. Some have much longer toes than others. But I'm speaking in principle here. Ultimately, we use these choices aesthetically, for how we wants things to look. But that's hard to arrive at without some distinct printing experience. So my advice would be to achieve a versatile negative rather than one which straight-jackets your printing into limited options. All of this becomes quite easy with a bit of practice.
Hello Drew,
Thanks for your advice.
If I understand well what you point, what is compressed in the film toe later cannot be well separated... so compressing shadows in the printing process has a higher degree of control.
I'll try to get that practice, I'm thinking in braketing scenes with deep shadows and then exploring how a more or less versatile negative can we worked to obtain these deep rich shadows, and at what level the jacket is too straight and it limits available options too much.
Regards,
Pere
Subject matter is an important consideration when compressing or expanding the shadows. Yousuf Karsh relied on placing shadows on the toe of the film and developing for a full range negative. This reduced contrast in the shadows, but enhanced it in the more important midtones and highlights. Highlight contrast could be boosted by discrete bleaching. To increase shadow contrast, a well-exposed negative can also be slightly bleached. For most of us, a well-exposed and unbleached negative is safer.
From what you point I've revisited Karsh photographs to see that effect. I often review Karsh master, but really this time I've seen it from another point of view... I feel those shadows allow subject personality to flow. I looks that he worked a lot of portraits by placing shadows in the toe.
Midtones look expanded, rendering well perceived volumes... and highlight roll-off is smooth. I've specilly observed Bogart's portrait, but there are a lot... Shaw, Warhool, Churchill, Nehru....
I've still never worked highlights with bleacher... it looks interesting, dirty whites do reduce impact... I'll remember it.
Thanks for the advice.
Get to first base first: a versatile neg with information all the way from what you regard as relevant shadows through the highlights. Keep is simple. After you've
learned to print well with one film and paper, you can start thinking about getting to second base, and how to differentially control midtone expansion using different development strategies or even more cooperative film choices. Karsh wasn't a one-trick pony, or he'd have gone out of business. Different subjects require a different approach. I wouldn't be surprised if he used Ortho film for some of his warty old men "character" portraits, something that certainly wouldn't be appropriate for some Hollywood gal all slathered with makeup in the first place to disguise the zits and lines. But most of Karsh's prints of famous men that I've seen really skated on midtone expansion rather than highlights. He likes deep shadows, but more for their drama or chiaroscuro effect. Shadows are easy enough to print down, so no telling what Karsh's original negs were like unless you've actually seen em. Many films have changed anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks