# My first test print



## oriecat (Feb 5, 2004)

I need to work on this s'more, but I'm just so happy to finally be working in my darkroom that I just want to share something!  I will have a couple more tomorrow, since they are drying right now...

I need to work on this one more.  The detail of the white of the cat's paw isn't coming in yet, but as a whole it's already too dark.  I guess I may need to reduce the contrast a little...  or just try and burn in the paw and face.







Edit for technical info - Nikon 4004, Ilford HP5 400 developed with Ilfosol, printed on Paterson RC Pearl with Arista developer.


----------



## manda (Feb 5, 2004)

omg thats gorgeous
is it M and O?!

I think thats one of my fave pics of yours Min :heart:


----------



## Dew (Feb 5, 2004)

it looks pretty good for your first test print ... the cat looks a little brighter than rest ... like u said, maybe a little burning & dodging should do the trick ... otherwise, not bad   (i would screw it up in a heartbeat   )


----------



## motcon (Feb 5, 2004)

not sure if you are split filtering or not, so here's a bunch of stuff.

- if you are split filtering, simply cut a mask around the cat's face and hit it with one more stop of 00 filter

- if you are not split printing and your filter is 2 1/2 or less, do the same as above

- if you are not split printing and your filter is 3 or more, cut a mask and hit the cat's face with a stop and a half of 00

by 'face' i mean paw as well.


glad to hear that you are sloshing in the chems, orie. nice shot.


----------



## schussey (Feb 5, 2004)

i think it looks awesome- great contrast


----------



## oriecat (Feb 6, 2004)

Thanks for the tips, Will.  I didn't use a filter at all on this one, I dashed it out really quick, I didn't even do a test strip... I will work on it properly soon and see what I can do with it...

Thanks Dew and schussy!  Thanks Mand.  Yes, that's M&O.


----------



## terri (Feb 6, 2004)

I'd be happy if this were my first print!   I know you've waited a long time for this, you must be so pumped!   Can't wait to see more of your work.


----------



## TheProf (Feb 17, 2004)

Looks like a good start

You dont need to burn though just print darker to get your hightlight detail in the paw the rest of the print will go really dark but just drop the contrast by 1 or 2 filters once you have the time for the paw.


----------



## motcon (Feb 19, 2004)

TheProf said:
			
		

> Looks like a good start
> 
> You dont need to burn though just print darker to get your hightlight detail in the paw the rest of the print will go really dark but just drop the contrast by 1 or 2 filters once you have the time for the paw.



shadow detail will be lost at that point.


----------



## TheProf (Feb 20, 2004)

Motcon

Actually dropping the filter will bring back the shadow detail.   Unless the neg is really contrasty or thin this should work


----------



## motcon (Feb 20, 2004)

shadow detail is unaffected by any filter under 3 1/2.....


----------



## TheProf (Feb 24, 2004)

Hmm Ive never heard of that,  this is how I have always printed and it works great, this is how I was taught in undergrad and in grad so im pretty sure it works.


----------



## motcon (Feb 24, 2004)

TheProf said:
			
		

> Motcon
> 
> Actually dropping the filter will bring back the shadow detail.   Unless the neg is really contrasty or thin this should work




uhm, no. it's the opposite of that.  magenta dictates shadows (higher number filters) and yellow dictates highlights (lower number filters).

it's common knowledge. surprised they taught you otherwise. 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006WOi
http://wynnwhitephoto.com/print.html
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Cont.pdf


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 24, 2004)

I was taught to print using exposure for the highlights and graded paper or contrast filters to control the shadows.  With MG paper magenta increases contrast and yellow decreases contrast.  Neither affect highlights (except that the filter blocks some light so exposure may need to be adjusted compared to printing with no filter).

Increasing contrast contracts the tonal scale, and decreasing contrast expands the tonal scale.  If I'm printing my highlights at the same value everytime then in a low contrast print I shouldn't have any true blacks, only dark grays.  In a high contrast print the dark grays may contract into black.  My experience is that I'll see increased shadow details in a low contrast print.  

From Henry Horenstein's "Black and White Photography":
Expose for the highlights; adjust contrast for the shadows.  In most prints, good shadow areas should be dark, but still retain detail.  Shadows that are too dark become solid black; shadows that are too light look gray and muddy.

From Ansel Adams' "The Print":
For the negative density scale represented here Grade 1 is too soft; when the high values are printed appropriately, the low values are only dark gray.  There are no true blacks in the print.  Grade 3 is too hard; when the high values are right, low and lower-middle values print too dark.  Areas that should print dark but with texture are solid black.


----------



## TheProf (Feb 25, 2004)

YES!!
thank you ksmattfish thats exactly how I understand it as well.


----------



## motcon (Feb 25, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> .  Neither affect highlights (except that the filter blocks some light so exposure may need to be adjusted compared to printing with no filter).




try printing with an 00 filter two stops over normal print time. of course it affects highlights...


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 25, 2004)

motcon said:
			
		

> try printing with an 00 filter two stops over normal print time



If I give the print 4 times normal exposure (2 stops) it is definately going to effect highlights, whether I'm using contrast filter #00, or #5, or no filter at all.  Exposure is used to control highlights.

Anyway, I'm not going to say that there is only one way to print;  whatever floats your boat and gets you safely to the other side.  Where you got my interest was with the statement "shadow detail is unaffected by any filter under 3 1/2....."  I'd never heard anything like this before, and it seemed to go against what I experience in the darkroom.  Several days later, after looking through books and searching the internet, I'm still unable to find any information regarding this.


----------

