Cropping your photograhs

Print of the whole negative

When it come to cropping your prints there are two schools of thought. Those that believe that once the view has been carefully framed in the camera, you should print the whole negative and in some cases include the rebate as well to prove it. The alternative view is that each image is unique and should be judged as such irrespective of its format.

My stance tends to follow the latter view or what best emphasis the composition whole frame or part of. It does not always follow that what your pre visualized view at the time translates to the baseboard when it comes to printing. 

It is important to consider how you're going to frame the image at the beginning of the printing process. The start of which is the contact print once produced time should be taken to consider what is best for each picture. In some cases it is an automatic decision how the picture is going to look. In others it is not quite so clear as to what is right. In these situations it maybe better to print the whole negative and use a crop tool to ensure what framing brings the best out of the image. 

Cropped for impact

Setting hard and fast rules when it comes to producing your pictures will prove detrimental in conveying the vision. It is better to keep an open mind and be bold in the way you frame your pictures. Sometimes it is good to seek other peoples opinions they may offer an idea that you have not considered, but remember these are suggestions that should not be followed blindly. You should only do what others indicate if you truly believe that it is the best for the composition and coincides with your vision for the picture.

I crop photo's for a number of reasons some listed below:

• 

  change story

  To remove unwanted items from the picture that sometimes get missed in the making process from around the edges.
• To correct a bad holding angel.
• To remove processing faults, dust hair etc.
• To change the balance and or emphasis of elements in the picture.
• To change the format of the picture.
• To remove dead areas from pictures tightening the composition.
• To create a better sense of intimacy.
• To improve composition.
• To tell a different story. If you are doing this then you should give serious consideration to the facts of the situation before changing the emphasis especially from a photojournalists perspective.

Crop tool.

You can use a crop tool which was mentioned earlier. It can help to improve how you compose images at the making stage. It is a way of training your eye.

Crop tool made from

They are simple to make as described below:

You can make a crop tool out of two bits of cardboard it needs to be 50 to 75mm (2” to 3”) wide and 500 x 400mm (20” x 16”) long or bigger than the largest print you are likely to make. If you do not want to make it completely from scratch then you can use a pre cut mount frame cut to make two L shapes. This allows the framing of the picture to be infinite.

This simple idea allows you to try out those more radical ideas along with the more prosaic to see if they work. It may surprise you in the process.

Out for a stroll with the Zero

It is always a joy to be out with the Pinhole camera. But it must be a strange sight to behold as I walk up the street. A little brown box attached to what could be construed as a big black stick (tripod). On this occasion it was a lovely bright day with a biting cold wind; I had not appreciated just how cold it was until I had been standing about making the first image.

As I strolled around the local lakes I took warmth from the brilliant sunshine and the anticipation of some interesting image making. By the time I was half a dozen pictures in I had forgotten how cold I was. I think the cold must have gotten to me as I could not remember what the reciprocity factor should be. Times 2 up five seconds and times 5 from then on. Dam and I had left my note book behind with the reminders in. Oh well I'm not going back.

from T max negative

This walk is turning to a bit of a jokers holiday which had started before I had even left the house. My Zero is a multi format camera Just before I loaded the film I checked to see where the dividers were and in my mind it was set to 6x6 I loaded the film and used the centre red window to view the frame count. I should explain there are three for the different sizes of negative. Later that day I had the chance to develop the film only to find it was set to 6 x 4.5 – ehh! Fortunately the second film was only part way through so rectified it by using the top window for the next days images.

The wind was that strong it was producing lots of fine ripples across the water. I was not quit sure how this would look in the final images not having made many photos of water with this camera. It just go's to show how cold it was, on the eastern side of the lake I found a lot of glass thick ice being smashed up on the shore. This brought back how cold I was feeling. Time to get back, to a home made slow cooked beef Currie that should be bubbling away by now.

Contact print at 2 seconds
the print is
also showing signs
of exhausted fix. 

Just before I left the house the following day I filled my pocket with a mix of film from different manufacturers; I do not usually do this but so what! it was an off the cuff decision to go out picture making so why not mix it up completely! The previous day I had already loaded Kodak's T Max 400 which I thought might be a bit of a gamble seeing how bright it was, just as well I did, as I messed up the exposure completely. On subsequent trips I loaded Ilford's delta 100 and Fomapan 100 which is my fav film for the Zero. The others were first time use and this time I got the exposure right.

How badly the T Max was exposed showed it self when I contact printed the negatives. I had to re do it at 5 sec's instead of my usual 2, enlarging lens fully open with white light (with no grade filters set). The negatives when looked at showed full detail. The contact print indicated that the enlargement were going to need long exposures and a lot of dodging to get them the way I wanted.

From Fomapan 100 negative

I have developed all my negatives in Adox version of Rodinal. I use 1+50 for the time required. I have to keep reminding myself that this developer has a high acutance and therefore a lot more contrast. In some cases overly so. I had in mind to use Kentmere RC gloss but changed to Footspeed's RC gloss that has a more normal look. If I had kept to the original route they would have had super contrast. As it was, I had to drop the filtration for printing down to 0 from my normal grade 3 . With the contrast sorted it was time for the exposures. With the segmented test print in the holding tray the fun really started. As an example one print had a base exposure of twenty seconds but then needed an extra 40 seconds on top of that for the sky and some of the lake. Others longer.

From Ilford delta 100 negative.

I had a good time in the darkroom even though the printing sessions were challenging the prints came out a lot better than expected. They have a lot of atmosphere to them that I'm really pleased about. Some of the photographs show that there is ice on the lake in places. I was not sure if that would show up but it has in a couple of the images.

Picture post images made using a Zero multi format camera.

These are the photographs that were mentioned in Many formats in one camera

Print from 6 x 9 negative

Print from 6 x 6 negative

Print from 6 x 7 negative

Print from 6 x 7 negative

Print from 6 x 6 negative

Print from 6 x 6 negative

Print from 6 x 4.5 negative

Print from 6 x 4.5 negative.

Technical data:

Film Fomapan 100, ISO100, developed in RO9 at 1+50, Printed on Adox MCP RC gloss, 6 X 4.5 negatives printed on Silverproof paper  Matt no longer available. All developed in Ilford multi grade. 

Pictures for sale

Tetenal Eukobrom AC first look

I like trying new things out in the darkroom, so when an offer to use Tetenal's new monochrome paper developer Eukobrom AC came up I jumped at it. I would like to thank Matt of AG Photographic and Tetenal for the chance to be one of the first to give it a test drive. A few weeks later a package arrived at the door, since then I have been chafing at the bit to try it out.

This is a new developer made for twenty first century. It is also the first commercially to use isoascorbate, vitamin C (you're not seeing things) as the main developing agent, it is a direct replacement for Hydroquinone the most widely used ingredient in photographic developers, noted for it's fast action and high contrast. It is marketed as the alternative to Ilfords multigrade all purpose paper developer producing the same sort of neutral tones. The developer works with both Fiber Baryta and resin coated light sensitive papers, whether multigrade or graded.

Top row: Ilford multigrade RC paper. left side in
multigrade developer. Right side Tetenal.
Bottom row: Fomaspeed variant RC paper. 

The data at the moment is quite sparse.

Technical Data:

Fibre Baryta Paper (FB)	Dilution	20C	25C	30C
	1+4	90s	70s	50s
	1+9	100s	80s	60s
Resin coated paper	1+4	50s	30s	15s
	1+9	70s	50s	30s

All information is provided for guidance only. Deviations may arise,

depending upon the paper used. Shortening or extending the development

time by up to 10% is possible.

Diluted 1+9  Eukobrom

In to the Darkroom.

The first thing you notice with this developer is it's lack of odour. The next is the colour of the liquid, a rich yellow. I decided to dilute at 1+9. Once done I poured the contents of the measuring jug into a tray. I would have used my up right paper processor but that already had fresh Ilford multigrade in it. Using the tray for the new developer would allow me to note how long it took for the image to start appearing.

The comparison.

I have several makes of light sensitive paper in stock. I chose three, the most obvious Ilfords multigrade, Fomaspeed Variant 311 and Kentmere VC select gloss, all resin coated papers. I went to these first as they are reasonable quick to process and give an insight into how the Eukobrom will perform. Before moving on to FB papers. (results to follow in another post)

The set up.

I chose a negative from a recently developed set of Agfa APX100. I set the height of the enlarger so it would produce an enlargement of 9 x 12 then set the easel to 8x10. I did this because the Kentmere paper I wanted to include I only had in 9x12, this would keep everything consistent.

Ilford multigrade RC  paper
 developed in Tetenal developer

 

 

The test strip was processed in the multigrade developer and it was indicating that the image would need to be dodged, if I wanted a picture I was happy with. I set the enlarger as follows lens F8, grade 3, exposure: The whole image was exposed for twelve seconds, the sky from the bridge upwards plus eighteen seconds and finally the sky from half way up to the top of the image plus eighteen seconds. I would produce two pictures on each paper all at the same setting. The developers temperature was set at 20C.

Ilford multigrade RC
 Paper developed in Multigrade

 

Results:

Both developers are advertised as neutral tone. To me this means they are subtlety on the cool side.

The differentiation started with:

• The Ilford paper when compared with the other papers in the test, has a slight warmth to it's tone when developed in fresh multigrade. The Eukobrom is slightly cooler in look with a more intense black and crisper whites giving it a bit more contrast.
• The Fomaspeed paper has a cooler look to it when developed in multigrade compared to the Ilford paper. The Eukobrom proved to be cooler looking again with more intense blacks and clearer whites again adding to the contrast.
• The Kentmere paper is known to have a higher contrast level to the previous papers mentioned maybe as much as a grade. When developed in multigrade the image had a muddy look to it indicating over exposure with a slightly warm feel to it. The Eukobrom processed image had a cleaner crisper look. Again the midtones had better separation making it look more like a moon light picture instead of over exposed.

Fomaspeed variant RC
 developed in Tetenal

 

Once you understand that Eukobrom adds contrast to the image possibly more so than the Hydroquinone it replaces. It is easy to allow for by reducing the grade you would normally use. The blacks are wonderfully rich giving the pictures some real punch. The mid tones have more separation than Ilford multigrade but the surprise is the brightness of the whites.

Fomaspeed  variant RC
developed in Multigrade

Personally the main questions yet to be resolved are its keeping qualities and whether or not the image will be warm when the developer starts to deplete.

Kentmere paper.
Top Row: exposed at grade three.
Right side Tetenal developer. Left multigrade.
Bottom row: exposed at grade two.

 

This is a nice developer to work with for prolonged periods as you do not get that developer smell lingering up your nose afterwards. Oh! It does look like OJ when diluted so keep it out of the reach of kids. It is a real gem and I will be ordering a bottle, it may even replace my favorite multigrade! Don't take my word for it try it for yourself you will not be disappointed. 

RO9 and the lens less camera.

All the photo's side by side

Over the last few months it looks like I have gone RO9s mad. I have! it is the new toy in my developing arsenal. I'm enjoying the quality of the negatives and not having to make up developer every time I want to process a film. It is still new enough for me to think I have forgotten to do something as I pour the liquid in the developing tank. With all this effort being spent on this developer it has made me think about its brother RO9 and it's attributes in connection with pinhole photography.

Image from PMK Pyro developed negative printed
on Ilford multi grade RC gloss.

Let me explain: RO9 is described as having a number of qualities, the main one here being, high acutance producing a very sharp looking image - a bit like sharpening a digital file in Photoshop. The idea that this developer may do this to the processed negatives has been a splinter in my mind for sometime, that I have been compelled to dust off my Zero pinhole camera to find out if it does make a difference.

Image from RO9 developed negative.
Printed on Kentmere RC gloss

I always feel very relaxed after I have spent time making images with this camera, I should use it more often. Anyway I loaded it with Fomapan 100 set to a 6x6 negative size.

 With the twelve images made it was into the darkroom to process the film. It was developed in the RO9 for thirteen minutes. The density of the negatives was as expected. With the new crisp looking negatives hanging up to dry what should I compare them with? After searching back in my archive of negatives it looks like the only other developer I have used when making images with the Zero is PMK Pyro. This developer is not known for it's sharpness but at least I did not follow the method through by using an afterbath. Which can add a further softening of the image by adding tone.

Zero pinhole set to 6x6 120 negative size

My comparison was never going to be very scientific. It was always going to be a case of would I be able to see a difference with the naked eye. You may feel that the comparison is unfair and to a certain extent you are right. To counter this I will compare the RO9 negatives with those produced with a lensed camera. If the RO9 is a sharpening developer it should be noticeable.

Image made using a camera lens.
35 mm Agfa APX 100 developed ID11

When looking down the focus finder at the different developed negatives the difference in grain structure jumps out at you. The PMK Pyro neg's are so smooth it is difficult to bring the the grain into sharp focus. Where as the RO9 grain looks like boulders. So does this defined structure indicate that the negatives will be sharper?

I enlarged the negatives to fill the 9 x 12 Kentmere RC gloss paper, instead of the smaller 6X6 square format of the negative. I wanted to see if the grain would be more exaggerated by doing this. To my surprise they lack the graininess I was expecting. In fact they are very smooth and defined.

RO9 developed negative printed
on Kentmere RC gloss

Conclusion:

With all the photographs laid out side by side is there a visual difference in sharpness? The straight answer is Yes but not enough to say if you want sharper lens-less images use Ro9. When you compare the PMK negatives with the RO9 ones there is slightly better definition to the edges of the subject giving you the sense that the pictures are sharper. It does not take away that distinct soft focus you get with pinhole cameras. If you then put a lensed print beside the RO9 developed picture you can see that it is very soft in the pinhole tradition. It shows that when using RO9 there is a sharpened quality to the photographs.

PMK Pyro developed image printed on Fomaspeed
Variant 131

  

Contaminated by wetting agent?

Developed in RO9 but it is not the developer.

When something unexpected happens while you are processing your negatives, it takes a bit of time to get your head round it. This happened while I was processing a number of rolls of film in R09 and using it's special brother.

 The problem has shown it's self by producing very blotchy negatives affecting two rolls of the six film developed. When this happens in a run of developing it is difficult to work out what circumstances are different enough to point a finger at.

Please bear in mind that the elimination process was written after I discovered the culprit.

Fomapan 100 negatives developed in RO9

Process of elimination:

1. So where to start? It is fortunate that the negatives involved were not the ones processed in the RO9 special. The RO9 developed one's were. This made the investigation more straight forward in that I have a better understanding of how RO9 works.
2. Was it the developer? It was made up seconds before it was used in the usual way.
3. What about Stop and Fix? Both were freshly made up minuets before use. So it cannot be one of the three main players? As they are all fresh.
4. OK what about the method? No difference there either I used my usual inversion sequence.
5. Processing tanks? Well I did press a tank into use that I have not used in a long time because of the quantity of film that needed to be developed.
6. Could that be the answer?
7. Did it affect one make of film in particular? No it did not, again this could have been a fortunate coincidence in that a roll of FP4+ and Fomapan 100 show the same affect. If it had only happened to one make it could have been construed as a manufacturing fault.
8. Water? It was fresh and clean and there had not been any notices to say there was a problem with the drinking water.
9. That leaves wetting agent? Hold on now that points to something I noticed when I was using PMK Pyro some years ago, I had a roll of film with the same sort of pattern. I put it down to the developer which I have

   

   Film FP4+ developed in PMK Pyro

   not used since. Thinking back to that time I had noticed that every time I opened the dev tank to pour out the developer there were a lot of bubbles in the top. That looked soapy and diminished with each step of the process which would suggest developer. I did speak to a number of other photographers at the time who suggested it was a developer fault. Although I stopped using the developer substituting it for ID11 and the problem disappeared was not convinced at the time. I changed how the kit was washed after each processing session. After a while I also stopped adding wetting agent to the tank. Using a different tank with it already added. Dunking the reel in by it's self and then soaking the reel in a bucket of water with a good resin afterwards.

Looking back I think when I pressed the other developing tank into use I mistakenly picked up the one I had been using for wetting agent. The resulting blotchy pattern is the result of its contamination.

This print was made from the same contaminated
Negatives. note no blotchy marks.

Conclusion:

Having eliminated all the other possibilities and no matter how silly it may sound the wetting agent is the culprit in this case. It has this time affected nearly all the frames on each film, when it happened some years ago (after checking the negatives) only certain frames showed signs of being blotchy. Which would indicate a weak contamination of the film process. This is only the second time I have had this problem in all the years I have been developing film. It just goes to show that something as innocuous as soap can cause so much trouble if it is not washed away conclusively after every processing session when added to the developing tank. My suggestion is to put wetting agent in a separate container and add the reel and film to it and not the other way round.

This picture shows that the blotches are prominent
In the sky but not the foreground.

When printing the affected negatives you cannot see the blotches when looking down the focus finder. Even though the contact prints show it quite clearly.

All the photographs that appear with this article were printed from the dodgy neg's. As I mentioned not all suffered the soapy demise. 

Scanning Photographs

Before adjustments in  Photoshop

Using a scanner for photographs is slowly becoming a thing of the past. I say a thing of the past but what I really mean is that you no longer need to use a flat bed scanner to reproduce your photographs to share with people digitally. You can if you wish use your smart phone or digital camera to reproduce the pictures you make.

As some of you know, most of the black and white images I share with you on this blog are scanned from photographs. Over the years I have developed a simple method for getting the best from my scanned prints and negatives. I like to keep things straightforward when it comes to digitizing prints. There is no point in doing a lot of work in Photoshop when I have already done it in the darkroom.

Levels adjustment.

Hus and saturation adjustment.

I use a very old flat bed Epsom scanner. I open the software on the computer and a window comes up with a number of pre-sets on it. In most cases I scan at original size, that's because my photographs are A4 and larger. This is done at three hundred DPI. I usually end up with a file size of about twenty four megabytes and under four thousand pixels on the longest side which is more than enough for screen display. The unsharp mask is set to medium. I always scan in colour even for monochrome and save the files as tiffs. Dust removal is set to zero, I have found it better to use a very slightly damp cloth wiped over the scanning window a few minutes before use to remove any bits. Far better than letting the software do it.

After all the adjustments have been added

Once on the computer I open the file in Photoshop. I check the picture at one to one for blind pixels, specks, process faults and dust etc, that have transferred from the darkroom process. The scanner tends to flatten the contrast of my images so I adjust the contrast to replicate that of the photograph in a levels mask. Once done I open hue and saturation mask to adjust the tone of the picture. If you use toned papers and developers the scanner under represent these as well hence the adjustment. Once done I flatten the layers and re-size it for web use.

I know what you are thinking that's a lot of work just to share a picture. If you think it is a good picture it's worth the work. It is a lot less work than some digital photographers do, who can use some forty or fifty layers to get the picture right.

Taken with a camera

I have included a picture from my phone and digital camera for comparison. Both pictures have been checked in Photoshop. Adjustments? Levels a slight tweak but no where near as much as the scanned photograph. The thing to watch for are reflections especially with gloss paper. If you look carefully you will notice some but not enough to detract from the picture.

A phone or a digital camera is a good way round not having a scanner for sharing images of photographs. These methods will not completely replace the consistent quality of a good scanner but will allow you to share you analogue work if you are on a tight budget.

taken with a smart phone.

 

Images for sale.

Mottled prints

The one thing I like about traditional photography is it can be unpredictable. Even though the method you use is tried and tested, guaranteeing to a certain extent, good results, when the unexpected happens there are a lot of questions. Checking the method and chemicals used is great when a clear mistake can be tracked down, but what happens when there isn't?

 Sometime ago I pulled a set of FP4+ 120 format negatives from the processing tank that at first glance looked normal. I was studying the negatives in their sleeve when I noticed that the grain was not as usual.

Anyway, I did no more about it until I printed a number of them, then it became apparent the grain structure was different, so much so that it gave the photographs a mottled affect. I was not impressed, however once the prints where dry I filed them away. 

I went back over the way I processed the negatives, checking everything, but could not find an obvious reason for the way they had turned out. To add to the mystery it was not present on all of them. At the time I had just started using a new batch of PMK Pyro developer. I asked myself a lot questions about: 'did I mix it properly?' 'in the right order?' etc. etc. but could not come to a clear answer. So I shelved the developer metaphorically and literally.

The reason I'm telling you all this is that recently I have been looking through some of my boxes of prints when I came across these pictures again. The funny thing is I now quite like those mottled pictures, so much so that I'm going to print some of the other negatives and do some reprints on different paper. I find it baffling that when revisiting prints or negatives that did not appeal at the time, either compositionally or technically, they have now come into vogue. It is almost as though you are not mentally ready for what your eye is telling you works. In other words you need to keep an open mind even if it is not what you set out to do.

Since writing this I have been reprinting some of the negatives making me question again whether it was a developer fault. There is only one way to find out. 

It is now 2021 and the fault is down to the backing paper in some cases if it is 120 format film.

I have now found the fault.