# Printing fog



## oriecat (Oct 10, 2004)

I have been working on a pic of the Golden Gate Bridge and being San Francisco it was kinda foggy.  Maybe I just need to wait a couple days and look at it again, but I find myself thinking it looks underexposed instead of foggy, then i look again and think no, that's how it should look, fog kinda makes it look that way.  So I don't know.  I am not sure what I'm asking.  Just looking for thoughts I guess...


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 10, 2004)

I know what you mean; it's light and grainy.  Sometimes I keep printing it darker until I know it's too dark, and back off.  Seeing what it looks like with too much exposure can help you decide what the right exposure is.


----------



## oriecat (Oct 11, 2004)

Thanks Matt. 

What do you think of this?


----------



## santino (Oct 11, 2004)

Hi Orie!

I'm not Matt but I think it's not underexposed, it's just fog (like you already said ).


----------



## SWFLA1 (Oct 11, 2004)

Hi Orie - 

as far as "correct" exposure is concerned it looks pretty close to me....  still details in the shadows and the lights aren't blown out....  you might try an "overexposed" shot to see what you get.. and maybe a grossly underexposed shot....  just for kicks....

good luck - if you get something interesting by varying the exposure, let's  take a look at it.

Bob


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 11, 2004)

It's really hard to tell from a scan, but I think that looks pretty good.


----------



## terri (Oct 12, 2004)

Orie, I love this image!   I can see the grain, yes, but it really only adds to the mood and majesty of the angle you have here.   I would love to try a shot like this, but it would probably drive me nuts developing it, too!   This is just beautiful.   

What film did you use here?


----------



## oriecat (Oct 14, 2004)

Thanks   This one was on Tri-X, developed in Rodinal.  For the print, I ended up doing the whole thing for 9 seconds, then I did 8 more seconds while I dodged the underside of the bridge because it was getting too dark, and then I did 4 more seconds only on the water at the bottom to burn that a little darker. All at f/11.


----------



## terri (Oct 14, 2004)

I've read that Rodinal is a good developer for infrared film, too, because it supposedly gives an open negative, without excessive contrast.   Even allowing for the outside factors of scanning and monitor variation, this looks like a dandy print to me.   I hope you end up with something you like, because this is just a gorgeous image to me.   _Love_ the fog!


----------



## oriecat (Oct 14, 2004)

Thanks babe!  I am liking it now.  At first I was trying to print it about 8x10 and it was way too grainy that large.  I reduced to a small size and I like it.   Altho it was a bit darker then too, I hadn't moved up to the #4 filter (which I forgot to mention above)... I may have to try again at the larger size and see if the lower exposure and filter will help.


----------

