Taking that first jump, and wanting some reasoning behind this video

[Torquemada]

Out of the box.

Seriously, i have been re reading some of the things youve said in my other threads and have realized something.

I need to cherry pick the information that works with what im trying to do. That is make a photograph become a print.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbhQTLeKqRw

got some decent visual help from this little video. Its nice to see an honest negative of thin and nomal density on someone elses easel. Very helpful. And ironically, despite what the naysayers else where feel,, my Foma 400 days shooting at box speed, are about 80% overall identical to that NORMAL NEG..

When he did the DENSE negative i do not understand what left field of thinking he was coming from when he decided on an exposure of 3 seconds.. looking at his test strip, the initial base exposure of 2 seconds was the best one.. it had the best sand and cliff detail.

But im really curious why his 3 second print,,, came out DARKER then the 6 second section of the test strip. Its just mind bending

[MartyNL]

But im really curious why his 3 second print,,, came out DARKER then the 6 second section of the test strip. Its just mind bending

I believe, you're mistaken. Take a look at the tone of the sky.

[Vaughn]

...

I need to cherry pick the information that works with what im trying to do. That is make a photograph become a print.

...

But im really curious why his 3 second print...

Your first bit explains your last bit. It is his photograph, not anyone else's.

[Torquemada]

The sand and cliff face is much better at the plain base 2 second burn. The cliff edges do indeed seem sharper against the sky in the 3 second burn, but you have no detail in the cliff face itself. Everything went to dark black for shdows, and the highlights went from a crummy white to MUD grey.

The beach has lost all detail, and the 4 second test strip actually had DETAIL in the small secton of beach. Pretty much black but it still has some highlight detail.


Ive tossed out bundles of prints that looked as bad as that 3 second burn because i wanted better. And going from various spots online, the sky could have sinmply been burned in for the 2 second test strip exposure.

[paulbarden]

No two people will interpret the same negative in exactly the same way; your aesthetic choices are different from everyone else's, so you can't expect someone else's printing decisions to align with yours.

[Peter Lewin]

There are lots of negatives which will not give you the print you want simply based on a single enlarger exposure. You have to learn a bit about "burning" and "dodging." Burning means you make your base exposure, and then add additional exposure to the area of the print which needs to be darker, shielding the rest of the print from the extra light using cardboard or your hand curved to the correct shape. Dodging is the reverse, while you are making your base exposure, you use "something" to shield the area which needs to be lighter. In your example, if you like the sky and water in the second print, but the beach and cliff face has lost all detail, you dodge the beach and cliff face so that they look like the first or second strip in your test, while the sky and water resemble a longer strip. And your times are much too short. Shut down your enlarger lens so that the base exposure is more like 10 or 12 seconds, which gives you much more time to control the amount of dodging.

[Pieter]

Maybe you should get some prints under your belt first. Taking a class if possible, getting hand-son experience under supervision. Then maybe you might understand the process better than watching YouTube.

[MartyNL]

The sand and cliff face is much better at the plain base 2 second burn. The cliff edges do indeed seem sharper against the sky in the 3 second burn, but you have no detail in the cliff face itself. Everything went to dark black for shdows, and the highlights went from a crummy white to MUD grey.

The beach has lost all detail, and the 4 second test strip actually had DETAIL in the small secton of beach. Pretty much black but it still has some highlight detail.


Ive tossed out bundles of prints that looked as bad as that 3 second burn because i wanted better. And going from various spots online, the sky could have sinmply been burned in for the 2 second test strip exposure.

The video is clearly expressed as being made in response to questions about short enlarger times.

If it were the intention of the video to make the 'best' print of the scene, then he would have used the correctly exposed negative!

[Willie]

Remember when making decisions on how a print will look you don't always want a literal interpretation of what is on the negative. Dodging, burning, paper & chemistry choices all give us a lot of leeway as we interpret what is on the negative.

[Drew Wiley]

Is anyone actually talking about only 2 or 3 seconds of cumulative exposure? That's ludicrous. How does anyone effectively dodge and burn in almost the blink of an eye?
Reluctantly, I did view the video. About all I can say, is that is negatives are that far off, in terms of being hopelessly too thick or too thin, that's why every darkroom should be equipped with a trashcan. Don't even bother trying to print them.