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.
Go buy some film, and release the magic.
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
my black and white photos of the Mendocino Coast: jonshiu.zenfolio.com
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
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
Go buy some film, and release the magic.
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.
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.
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...
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.).
Tim, here is a nice article 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.
Bookmarks