What Can I Do Better?

koraks said:

I think you're doing great. The print is punchy, ao is the negative. In case you want to subdue it, you could work on contrast control of the internegative, but of course you could also do the usual burning, dodging and flashing while printing. Not that I feel you must do any of this - I quite like what you got.

Can you tell us a bit more about the museum exhibit? Sounds nice!

Click to expand...

koraks said:

That's really cool @Michael Heller, and it must be great to receive this recognition of your work! And at the same time also a gargantuan task...makes it worth it to dial in a couple of process variables so you can make good headway.

Click to expand...

xkaes said:

I agree. You're on track. The problem you have is that while PAN F is a great film, it's also relatively high contrast. An easy way to control this is to over expose it -- ISO 12-25 -- and under-develop it -- 25-50%. This will produce a flatter negative. You could try a lower contrast B&W paper or filter, but a flatter negative will capture more in the slide -- because it's over-exposed. How much exactly to over-expose and under-develop? I'm sure you can handle a little trial & error -- just take good notes.

This is actually being discussed right now -- some might say being beaten to death -- in another thread:

Linearity of pulling film and developer temperature

Two questions in one :) Is there a rule of thumb for how much to adjust the time when pulling film? Is the relation between developing time and developer temperature linear? Yesterday I developed a roll of Fomapan 400 in Adox XT-3 (XTOL). The datasheet said 7 minutes at 20 degrees, my...

www.photrio.com

Click to expand...

Michael Heller said:

The goal is decent analog B&W prints from 35mm slides. Prints will go to a Museum collection
I'm copying with a slide copier to PanF processed in D-76 1:1, 7 min @68degrees
Printing on MGFB Ilford. Image is printed #2 contrast, with the highlites burned with a 00. The left side was dodged some...
I know a 4x5 interneg might be better, but I'm not set up for 4x5 film.
I chose this image for a test because of the bright snow and dark reds and blacks in their outfits.
What could I have done differently to make the print better?
Thx!

Click to expand...

bernard_L said:

I would be cautious with overexposing Pan F. The shoulder sets in early; that would compress the highlights of the slide, while they already (on the slide) have a lower contrast than the dark tones.

Click to expand...

xkaes said:

flatten out the curve.

Click to expand...

Michael Heller said:

Thanks! I was Photo editor and head photographer at a newspaper in Santa Fe New Mexico in the 70s-90s. Now the Museum of New Mexico wants ALL my work. I've been making B&W prints for them for a couple of years and I'm experimenting with B&W from some of my color slides. I have a You Tube channel that you can look through and see some of the stuff I'm doing as well as a bunch of videos on setting up my darkroom and my 'process'. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvTm7EIbd4gh-hctrz-UBeQ
As far as contrast control I've been experimenting with the 'interneg' development times. I've lived in HP5 so the PanF takes a little experimenting.

Click to expand...

koraks said:

Which will leave the highlights muddy and flat.
Keep in mind that reducing development does not flatten the curve per se.

Click to expand...

miha said:

Wow, thank you for sharing this YouTube channel! You've totally made my Sunday morning, I've been enjoying your videos so much!

Click to expand...

xkaes said:

It works for me and my gear, and it might work in this case as well. Those highlights could use a little "mud".

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

I think I'd use Tmax 100 instead of PanF. Tmax is excellent for copying. You can also experiment using filters on your lens to adjust how the colours come through in terms of contrast. Filters should work the same as they would in the actual world. Not sure what kind of slide copier you're using, so I don't know how filters would fit. If you have a lot of slides to copy, you may want to get an Illumitrans.

Click to expand...

cliveh said:

What I don't understand is

What I don't understand is how you are getting negs like that with only 7 minutes development. Are you sure dilution/time/temp are correct?

Click to expand...

Michael Heller said:

I lived in Tri-X and HP-5... back when, and since my return I have still yet to try/use T-Max. Maybe now's the time. I do think the internegative gets the tweaking first. I've got a fixed barrel copier that has a lens built into it. It adapts to my Nikon like a normal bayonet lens. I'd have to cut some gells or something so that's not and option. Thx!

Click to expand...

miha said:

Tri-X was huge for U.S. journalists in the '70s. Why do you prefer HP5 over Tri-X?

Click to expand...

Michael Heller said:

I was one of them and I ordered thousands of rolls of whatever I wanted and my staff of 3 and I all preferred HP-5 because in Acufine it pushed better and gave us negatives with less blocked up highlites. (For 3200ASA I think it was 9 min @85 degrees (yes 85!) - invert the tank ONCE, set it down and walk away. Do not touch the tank until it goes into a 80 degree wash and Fix.{preheat tanks and reels too!) At 400 they were about the same but we processed everything for shadow detail and we shot 2 or three subjects on a roll so our negs were always a little on the 'thick' side and we liked HP-5 better. Highlites were only going to be as white as the parer stock the newspaper was printed on anyway! Thx!

Click to expand...

Michael Heller said:

So if our B&W prints didn't adapt to their whole production process, the image in the paper would look like shit. But we always looked great.. and our negs were usually a little thick!

Click to expand...