# I have decided that.........



## 480sparky (Nov 20, 2015)

......... I'm totally in love with shooting 4x5..................... loaded with black & white film...................... souping the film..................... and then............... *gasp!*......................._making wet prints._

Just stepped out of the darkroom with my latest project:  Printing a neg I shot a couple weeks ago of an exceedingly high-contrast scene: Looking straight up into the state capital dome.

Although I was more than satisfied with the way the digital scan came out, I was just flat-out schnizzled when I hung up the old-fashioned, honest-to-goodness, this IS your father's photograph, print.

Due to the high contrast, I went with a split filter process, exposing the shadows for 2 seconds w/#5 filter.  I then changed the contrast filter to the #00, and exposed the paper for 40 seconds, dodging the shadows for 15 seconds of it.  I then reset the timer to 20 seconds and added 15 of it to the 'sunstreams' that were striking the dome from the windows.







The print is still hanging up to dry.  I made a graphic example of the exposure process:


----------



## timor (Nov 20, 2015)

Bravo !
Now it is time to make FB print.


----------



## limr (Nov 21, 2015)

Excellent!


----------



## oldhippy (Nov 21, 2015)

very impressive work


----------



## PixelRabbit (Nov 21, 2015)

Damn!


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2015)

OK. Now when you got your prises let make some analysis. First, what was the purpose of exposing the shadows, I understand, that you doged the highlights from it, with #5 ? Did you checked ? Did you develop a sheet after that exposure to see the effect ? If so, was there anything, any trace of the image on the paper ?


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 21, 2015)

Sweet!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 21, 2015)

timor said:


> OK. Now when you got your prises let make some analysis.



What are prises?



> First, what was the purpose of exposing the shadows, I understand, that you doged the highlights from it, with #5 ?



This is a split-filter print.  I used the #5 filter to expose for the shadows, then switched to a #00 to expose for the highlights.



> Did you checked ?



?????



> Did you develop a sheet after that exposure to see the effect ?



Two test strips are needed at a minimum.  I put in the #5 and did a test strip for the shadows.  That ended up being 2 seconds.. anything longer would turn it all pure black.  I then swap the #5 for the #00, and do test strips for the highlights.  In this case, 40 seconds.  Anything less blows out too many highlights Then, to make a test print, I do both on one sheet of paper.... 2 seconds with the #5 filter, and 40 seconds after installing the #00 filter.  After developing, I make adjustments for dodging & burning.



> If so, was there anything, any trace of the image on the paper ?



?????


----------



## tirediron (Nov 21, 2015)

Outstanding work!


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2015)

Prises: excellent, sweet, impressive, even damn and outstanding.
Well, I try to understand your process. So, more than 2 sec. with 5 would turn shadows completely black. And then you added 25 sec. to the shadows with 00 ? I understand, that you dodged shadows for 15 sec. ? Right ?


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2015)

Forgive me my confusion but filter 00 to my knowledge let 5x more light then filter 5. So 25 sec with 00 should make the shadows black instantly.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 21, 2015)

The filters are different colors, and control the two different colors that the VC paper is sensitive to.


----------



## annamaria (Nov 21, 2015)

Nice work!! I enjoy ur shots


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2015)

I know that, but it doesn't mean, that 00 is not sending any light to shadows. System of having different filter for every zone while printing would be awesome.  I am just a bit stunned with the amount of time needed for the highlights. I did some splits in extreme situations, mostly as a rescue, and from well made negs it shouldn't be needed, however some say prints look better. Well.
Honestly, how dense is the negative ?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 21, 2015)

Beautiful photo.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 21, 2015)

timor said:


> I know that, but it doesn't mean, that 00 is not sending any light to shadows. System of having different filter for every zone while printing would be awesome.  I am just a bit stunned with the amount of time needed for the highlights. I did some splits in extreme situations, mostly as a rescue, and from well made negs it shouldn't be needed, however some say prints look better. Well.
> Honestly, how dense is the negative ?



It's not so much the density alone as it is the extreme dynamic range of the scene.  It goes from dark shades deep in shadows to full sunlit whites.  To shoot this digitally would require HDR, regardless of how many dollars the camera cost.

IIRC, there were 14 stops of range in the scene when I metered it.


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2015)

OK, so tell me for which zone did you exposed negative ?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 21, 2015)

timor said:


> OK, so tell me for which zone did you exposed negative ?



V.  What else?


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2015)

And you pushed development ? Still wonder why such a long exposure was needed. The print is 8x10 right ?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 21, 2015)

timor said:


> And you pushed development ? Still wonder why such a long exposure was needed. The print is 8x10 right ?



No. Pushing would have increased the contrast.  There was more than enough to start with.

I had to stop down to f/22 in order to get a manageable exposure time for the shadows.

I could have gone to f/32 for 4 seconds, but that would stretch the highlight exposure to 1:20.



.


----------



## timor (Nov 22, 2015)

Thanks.


----------



## terri (Nov 22, 2015)

Gorgeous work!    There really is no comparison to watching that image start to appear on the paper under the safelights, is there?


----------

