Printing
 |
| Figure 1 |
Before
any of my negatives see the enlargers negative carrier they all get contact printed, for me
this is the first indication of how they may print when enlarged and for some the
only time they become a positive. It also serves as a reference.
The contact
prints for the Adox and Rollei show under development, to what extent will only
become clear when the test strips are produced. The Fomapan 100 and the FP4+
show as well toned. In the case of Ilfords FP4+ it may be over developed.
Once more I
step into the the red world of the darkroom and the smell of chemicals. Only
there are none! The developer, stop and fix need to be mixed a fresh. This is
due to a problem with the fix turning the slot of the Nova processor black.
Still not completely sure why!
 |
| Figure 2 |
I set the
light boxes height on the enlarger so it will generate a print 9”x 12” in size.
This means the the 6x6 negatives are going to be brutally cropped; maybe that should be less dramatic and say 'creatively cropped' to fit a landscape format
but also serves to increase the magnification.
I have set
the enlarging lens to F8. All the negatives will be exposed at this setting, it
allows a comparison to be made as to how over or under developed they maybe
with each other. In the past when F8 is set I find that it gives me a time in
the region of 30+ seconds exposure time. Which for me is about average.
 |
| Figure 3 |
I have set
grade two and a half to start with, if this proves to be to hard I'll drop it
to two. The paper being used is silverproof matt limited grade paper. Being
limited does not mean it has not got a full range of tones. It also provides a
certain look to the prints that I like.
The first
negatives to be exposed are the Fomapan 100. Looking down the focus finder the
film has a regular fine grain making it
quite easy to get it pin sharp. The test strips for these negatives are
indicating an exposure of twenty one seconds. The picture of the woods (Fg1) was to hard for the 2.5 grade I
set, so reduced it to 2 for the second exposure. Figure 2 the shadow of the tree reflected in the puddle. Printed straight, was a little flat,
so I printed it a second time at grade 2 but burnt in (added exposure) to the areas around the puddle to lift the
puddle area.
 |
| Figure 4 |
 |
| Figure 5 |
The next
negatives to be exposed were from the Adox film. Looking down the focus finder
to sharpen these negatives brought a smile
as it looked like someone had gone mad and splattered the grain on by
flicking a brush. This may have been the result of under development. The test
strips were also saying that the negatives were thin, suggesting an exposure of
ten seconds, half that of the Fomapan. The two negatives from the Adox film are
the complete opposites to each other. The fence post picture (Fg 3) had no
detail I could see in the shadow when held up to the light. So when it was
being exposed I dodged the shadow area
for a couple of second to stop it blacking right out. Once it had dried I was surprised to see lots
of detail. The two tree picture (Fg 4) was always going to be a landscape crop
as there was to much foreground in the negative. It also looked the best
picture negative wise.
 |
| Figure 6 |
The Rollei
400s was up next I had trouble picking two negatives that I could see enough of
to print. These negatives were thinner than the Adox with some of the frames
not showing at all. When looking through
the focus finder at the grain it revealed it to be patchy and shows up on the
prints as white blotches. Lack of proper
development is evident maybe?. The picture of the rain on the window (Fg5) was
a difficult print to get right. Keeping
the detail, what there is of it, of the door handle and leaf on the left. It
was down to six seconds of exposure. The cat (Fg6) picture was the same six seconds
but shows up the blotchy grain more. If I had shut the enlarging lens down to
F11 or F16 I would have had more time to manipulate how the pictures looked by
dodging and burning.
The last
negatives to be worked on were the FP4+. Looking down the focus
finder it
displayed a fine regular pattern I have come to expect from this film when
developed in ID11. I had been looking forward to printing them but was thrown
when the test strip revealed that a thirty second exposure was no where near
enough. A further two tests revealed a time in the region of fifty seconds. You
could say they were the best developed or over developed depending how you look
at things. I printed an number of negatives from this film. I was really taken
by the smooth tones of the pictures and the intensity of the sky. It was a
bright, warm cloud less day. The prints show what a great morning it was at the
bridge. Figure seven showing the
superstructure of the bridge gives a good indication as how good the sky was
and Figure eight gives a good idea of how strong the sun was. Both pictures
were printed at grade two but could quite easily have taken a softer grade.
 |
| Figure 7 |
 |
| Figure 8 |
Conclusion:
I am
disappointed that the Rollei 400 was not developed correctly, I know it can
produce some very smooth well toned negatives which would have lead to some
great prints. As for Adox film, I am coming to the conclusion that we do not
mix as this is the second time it has failed to present a good set of neg's.
The Fomapan 100 classic was a surprise, if you are looking for a substitute for
FP4+ then you will not go far wrong with this emulsion in my opinion. I have
noticed that it is slightly more grainy than the FP4+ if you have to burn in
the high lights heavily. I use both these films regularly now in rotation as their
characteristics are almost identical.
Links to others from series in case you missed them.
