Advice on printing scene with heavy fog

[Xícara de Café]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

Last year I attempted to print a scene of a tower in heavy fog. While I was able to get a decent image from the scan on the computer, I had real difficulty getting any contrast between the greys in the negative in the print. The image below is how I'd like my print to look, although perhaps I'll try and go a little darker as that also looks good to me. With the print, I couldn't find a way of bringing out the dark line on the tower and the tower itself was also very undefined (less so than in the adjusted scan).

I'd like to make a second attempt at printing this, and wonder if anyone can please offer advice on what approach or steps I should take?

I do split grade printing and usually get decent results. Unfortunately I didn't keep a record of the times I used or the exact filters. I'm using Ilford multigrade paper and developer, although my filters are Kodak Polymax and not the Ilford ones. But they usually seem to work. The negs are developed in PMK, so I don't don't know if the stain is complicating things.

Thanks!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

[250swb]

Just an idea but I'd start with a higher contrast and then burn in the parts of the tower that you want to bring out.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Stuart Richardson]

Is the negative thin? Because that can really complicate what you are trying to achieve. Very thin, low contrast negatives tend to be better suited to scanning, as there is the possibility to add infinite contrast, whereas darkroom printing is more challenging with these types of negs since you only have grades 0-5 in printing. Burning and dodging could work, as could doing paper flashing ahead of your burning...it helps accentuate the difference in contrast). If it really will not print the way you want, you might consider a bleaching phase. If you print it a bit darker in the highlights than you want, you can then do a pass in some bleach. The bleach acts more quickly on the highlights than it does on the shadows, so it can be a way to better separate tones and increase your highlights while leaving the rest of the image mostly unchanged. It takes some practice to get it right, however....and if you overbleach there is no coming back without doing another print.

P.S. I am not talking chlorine bleach...photographic bleach, potassium ferricyanide.

[Xícara de Café]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

Just an idea but I'd start with a higher contrast and then burn in the parts of the tower that you want to bring out.

Burning in might help bring out the tower, didn't think of it - i can try cutting out a mask.

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Burning and dodging could work, as could doing paper flashing ahead of your burning.

Hadn't heard of flashing, found some things on it now, will have a read.

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

P.S. I am not talking chlorine bleach...photographic bleach, potassium ferricyanide.

May be hard to find here. Is it as toxic as it sounds?

I don't think the negative is so thin. Here's the raw (lower case) capture from a DSLR. But of course this has its exposure adjusted. Will go dig out the negative. :

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Thanks a lot!

Edited June 3, 2021 by Xícara de Café

[Xícara de Café]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Aryel]

Hello,

What did you try so far?

I'd have tried to expose for the whites at grade 2 or so first and then burn the bottom right of the tower at a higher grade probably 5 and the top part at a lower grade to bring it out...

I have only limited experience with flashing but my impression is that it tends to reduce contrast so i wouldn't try there (or just locally on the bright part of the tower). 

Good luck. It is a nice photo 😊

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice to read a discussion on darkroom printing. The negs look dense enough and PMK should help the gradation. I think with subtle shades of white the smallest changes in print exposure time or grade can make all the difference in the look of the print, also giving the paper full development. Burning in can be tricky when subtle changes are needed as the burn can look obvious. A friend is very experienced at cutting back areas using ferri’, he says to wash it off before it even looks as if it has cut the whites back to where you want it. I must try it myself.

good luck.

[Xícara de Café]

8 hours ago, Aryel said:

What did you try so far?

I was mistaken, i did take a few notes but they're far from complete as I remember trying many things and giving up in frustration. 🙂 I would have started  with combinations of filter 0 and filter 5 but kept no notes. I then tried combinations of filter 1 and 5 starting at 2.5" for each (yes, my exposure times are always very short, I need to get the correct incandescent lamp for my Leitz 1c. I'm using a LED lamp and it must be too bright). That combination I noted as "pallid". Increasing filter 1 to 3.5" gave the result of "blah". Increasing the time of filter 1 further still also didn't help but I left no description. I also seem to have tried filter 4 alone at 5" but also didn't leave a description.

[Stuart Richardson]

This is a very flat and dense negative, which is tricky to deal with. You are already using a condenser enlarger, which helps increase contrast. You could try intensifying the negative with an intensifier or with selenium toner. It might give you a bit more contrast, but this is tricky, as the tones you are trying to separate are very close. This might be the kind of negative that simply prints better digitally. I am not saying to give up, but if you run a hybrid process, then certain images are just better suited one way or the other.

P.S. Potassium ferricyanide bleach is not as toxic as it sounds. Just don't use it without gloves and don't mix it with strong acids, or you can break it down and release hydrogen cyanide, which is very bad news. But used properly it is quite safe.

[Pyrogallol]

If the negative is already fairly dense I wouldn’t have thought intensifying it would help, and I don’t know how an intensifier would work on a negative developed in PMK?

Don’t know what to advise next apart from trying more variations of exposure and contrast? Maybe try a different paper ?

[Chuck Albertson]

I'd skip the split-filter printing and just go with a #5 filter, and move down from there if the print looks too harsh. If you're doing split-filter printing, take a pencil into the darkroom and write the filters/times on the back of the print. It will survive the chemistry.

[Aryel]

19 hours ago, Xícara de Café said:

I was mistaken, i did take a few notes but they're far from complete as I remember trying many things and giving up in frustration. 🙂 I would have started  with combinations of filter 0 and filter 5 but kept no notes. I then tried combinations of filter 1 and 5 starting at 2.5" for each (yes, my exposure times are always very short, I need to get the correct incandescent lamp for my Leitz 1c. I'm using a LED lamp and it must be too bright). That combination I noted as "pallid". Increasing filter 1 to 3.5" gave the result of "blah". Increasing the time of filter 1 further still also didn't help but I left no description. I also seem to have tried filter 4 alone at 5" but also didn't leave a description.

Depending on how the blah looked, I'd start back from there and try to burn... Hard to say without seeing 😊

[Xícara de Café]

Thanks all, I'm going to have another stab at this this weekend or the next. I don't know if I understand the way contrast is adjusted with multigrade papers and filters but I assume there's some central tonal point from which contrast is adjusted, ie. above which, tones are lightened and below which, they are darkened. Is this correct? Because what I noticed when I attempted to print this (was 6 months ago, it's slowly coming back to me) was that adjusting the contrast didn't seem to help. It was as if all the tones were above this theoretical pivot point, so any increase in contrast made no improvement to differentiate the pale tones of the image. So maybe Stuart is right and I'll have to make a digital print.... But I will try again! 🙂

[aesop]

     ...hey, Xicara de Café, sorry I have nothing to add to this riveting thread, but how did you get on? Also, do you remember how you metered for the shot? The whole fog thing has got me truly intrigued. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

[Xícara de Café]

On 7/8/2021 at 5:54 PM, aesop said:

     ...hey, Xicara de Café, sorry I have nothing to add to this riveting thread, but how did you get on? Also, do you remember how you metered for the shot? The whole fog thing has got me truly intrigued. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

Hi, sorry i missed this. Still haven't printed, have been waiting for some more negs good enough to print to do a larger batch of prints. Should be soon and I'll report back. I actually dont remember how I metered unfortunately. It was surprisingly cold and I was up there in shorts and a t-shirt, rather distracted by the weather! It's probably metered on standard reflected light (although I did have an incidental meter with me). I guess the best approach would have been to use reflect light and open up a stop. Perhaps I did that, but I don't remember. 🙂

[davidmknoble]

@Xícara de Café, just another thought, but paper has a lot to do with the final print as well.  Matte papers have much less contrast.  I would consider a higher contrast paper, even a baryta type and also consider a heat gloss finish which will increase the contrast. Add the #5 filter as a start.  You can also play the N+/N- game just like film. 

Looking at your original post, it does not seem like you have a lot of intricate detail, so on top of the #5 filter, you could try over-exposing the paper and under developing it.  THat will enhance the contrast.  It will be hit or miss, so I might try using 4x6 paper and just going for the black strip to get the exposure you want before using a larger paper…

Just some thoughts…

Excited about seeing your results!

[Xícara de Café]

1 hour ago, davidmknoble said:

Looking at your original post, it does not seem like you have a lot of intricate detail, so on top of the #5 filter, you could try over-exposing the paper and under developing it.  THat will enhance the contrast.  

Thanks David. I'm a real novice at printing. Using Ilford multigrade developer I develop for 2 minutes and adjust my exposure time accordingly by doing test strips. Would you suggest halving that time? My paper is Ilford FB gloss. It may have been FB matte when I tried to print this scene, I forget. Unfortunately not much choice of papers here in Brazil.

[davidmknoble]

@Xícara de Café, Sounds like good paper for contrast!  I love the ilford products.  What I would do is look at the ilford paper instructions that came with them.  If your ‘standard’ printing is exposing the paper for 10 seconds and 1 minute in the developer (I’m making these times up), you could try 12 seconds exposing the paper and 50 seconds in the developer.  It will take some testing to see.  Does that help any?

[Pyrogallol]

No. Over exposing the paper and under developing it will just result in a poor print with flat grey or brownish blacks and pale foggy whites, paper fog not the fog of a foggy day. Adjust the multi grade filtration and exposure time but keep to full development.

I use Ilford papers and glossy fibre based is one of the best.

For a foggy day picture you need a bit of sunshine to pick out the shapes in the fog and give a little sparkle to the  water in the fog.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Pyrogallol

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear