# Mountain cabin breakfast: Is this image too flat?



## Compaq (May 10, 2014)

*Darkroom: *I was not able to get the deep blacks I wanted. I am thinking of trying a water bath just after the blacks are starting to come, but I have never done this do not know how large the effect will be. 

Anyway, I really feel there is an image here. With the girl pointing, her mother looking, and the man looking a whole other way. The milk carton man also looks like he is checking out whatever the little girl is pointing at. I do not think these people wanted me to post their family breakfast online, so I erased their faces. I know this may be too much of a distraction for someone, but please try to look past this.





Thanks for looking!
Anders


----------



## timor (May 10, 2014)

Yes, image is way too flat here. The question is why. How looks the negative ? Looks like it is rich in detail.
What type of paper are you using ? FB or RC ? What type of enlarger ? What type of filtration ? What paper developer are you using ? What ratio of dilution ? Water bath was invented to actually decrease the contrast and bring detail in shadows. Much the same like two bath film development. So it may make the print just flatter. You need here an increase in contrast.


----------



## limr (May 10, 2014)

I agree the blacks need to be blacker in the image. Midtones are too flat. But the whites are already there - look at the window. You don't want to blow those highlights out too much, so it's more a matter of deepening shadows, I think, rather than bumping the overall contrast.

How to do that with wet printing, I couldn't tell you. Sorry :er: Is this where maybe some burning would help?


----------



## timor (May 10, 2014)

limr said:


> You don't want to blow those highlights out too much, so it's more a matter of deepening shadows, I think, rather than bumping the overall contrast.


That's the idea of increasing contrast. Highlights stays in same place, shadows go deeper. But so far we don't know, if that is negative problem or printing problem. Until Compaq responds.


----------



## Compaq (May 11, 2014)

Hey! I had a problem finding my tread; it was moved without my knowing about it!

*Paper*: RC Ilford MGIV pearl 8x10
*Developer*: Paterson Acugrade 1+14
*Enlarger*: Durst m605 color (I think)
*Procedures* (from memory, notes in darkroom)
    f/16
    Minimal cropping (just fitting the image to the paper format)
    Base exposure: 15 seconds
    Window and curtains: +7 seconds
    Table-top: +7 seconds
    Magenta filter: 35
    90 seconds in developer

The window and table was quote over exposed, but the people seemed fine in the negative. I decided it was easier to burn in the window and table than to dodge everything else. If I did the base exposure on a higher filter value, I was afraid of losing detail in the window. This has happened to me before with clouds. Too much contrast just drags whatever detail out into white-ness, even if I burned in the window at a low contrast grade.

The problem, the way I saw it, was that I needed richer blacks, and more local contrast in the mid tones (wooded panels, for example). This image was at the end of my darkroom session, so I was kind of tired. I did not try to increase the filter just to see if that solved my problem. I thought we used  water bath to let the blacks further develop without affecting the whites.

The negative was not perfect, else this issue should be moot. This is the part of printing I seem to struggle with: getting rich blacks when the negative requires some work.


----------



## ann (May 11, 2014)

change the filter grade, try 4 -5.


----------



## Compaq (May 11, 2014)

It is as simple as that?


----------



## timor (May 11, 2014)

Yes, it looks like you filtering on the level of 1-1.5. First increase the contrast and find the time for getting the shadows right. That will be your base time. Let see, how the highlights will look then. If they are too bright (and the window is a problem - direct sun), subtract from the base time 20%, switch the filter back to level you are using right now and give this 20% exposure. It is called split filtering and the proper ratio you have to work out empirically, I am assuming you don't have any of this:
Enlarger Timers, Meters and Darkroom Equipment from RH Designs 
http://www.camramirez.com/pdf/P1_SplitFilterPrinting.pdf
Lower dilution of your Acugrade to 1+9. How old is your concentrated developer ?


----------



## webestang64 (May 11, 2014)

From the photo I see the table as being your sweet spot. From White, middle grays and blacks. They are all there. Using Timor's method should bring the rest into place.


----------



## unpopular (May 11, 2014)

Try splitting the filter, use a 4-5 for shadows and a 0-3 for hilights. I cant really recommend how to split it. Typically I would expose the shadows to 50% target density (this depends on a lot of factors) and then let the shadows burn in the rest of the way with the highlights. PM or reply for details.


----------



## Compaq (May 12, 2014)

timor said:


> How old is your concentrated developer ?



It is a couple of months old, closer to half a year. So, would you say finding the good exposure for the shadows always should be priority number one, and adjust thereafter? For the image posted here, I guess I settled for somewhere in-between good shadows and good highlights. Maybe it is better to always settle for one of the extreme points first, and worry about the midtones last?

I will try out what you suggested, and report back here after.

unpopular: 


> Typically I would expose the shadows to 50% target density (this depends on a lot of factors) and then let the shadows burn in the rest of the way with the highlights.



I am not sure I understand what you mean by "and then let the shadows burn in the rest of the way with the highlights". Could you elaborate?


----------



## timor (May 12, 2014)

Unpopular is saying the same thing, he just propose to start with different ratio of split. My negatives work good in 75/25 ratio (high contrast / low contrast). He proposes 50/50 as a starting point. With wet printing the "rule" is to get your zone 1 (or 0, depends how one counts) right. If you don't, picture will always look flat. The goal however with exposing and developing negatives is to print them without split filtering, just on normal paper or filter 2-3.
Your concentrate should be OK.  However there is not an assurance, that this particular developer is optimal for Ilford RC paper. Ilford RC papers despite containing own developing agents, still react in some way with the tray developer giving somewhat different results.


----------



## terri (May 12, 2014)

You could also extend the time in the developer.   I know you're using RC paper, but don't be afraid to extend it past 90 seconds when you simply want to deepen those blacks.


----------

