POST EXPOSURE - Advanced Techniques for the Photographic Printer

by Ctein

This material is Copyright ©1998 by Ctein. All rights reserved.

Contents

Preface

Introduction - - - xiii

CHAPTER 1 - How We See - - - 1

CHAPTER 2 - - - How the Film Sees - - - 11

CHAPTER 3 - - - Calibrating Films and Exposure Meters for Light and for Color - - - 27

CHAPTER 4 - - - How Print Materials See - - - 33

CHAPTER 5 - - - Enlarging Issues - - - 47

CHAPTER 6 - - - Matching the Tonal Characteristics of the Film and the Print Material - - - 69

CHAPTER 7 - - - Prints from Slides vs. Prints from Negatives - - - 73

CHAPTER 8 - - - Contrast Control in Color - - - 79

CHAPTER 9 - - - Tricks of the Trade - - - 93

CHAPTER 10 - - - Special Concerns of Variable-Contrast Paper Users - - - 107

CHAPTER 11 - - - Fiber vs. Resin-Coated Black and White Papers - - - 123

CHAPTER 12 - - - The Issue of Permanence - - - 127

CHAPTER 13 - - - My Darkroom - - - 141

CHAPTER 14 - - - Useful Tools - - - 145

CHAPTER 15 - - - Presentation - - - 151

Index - - - 155

Introduction


A photographic print is not reality but interpretation, a mere mapping of reality. This simple core truth of photography is ill-understood and frequently ignored. The photographic map of visual reality is no more accurate than the familiar Mercator map of the earth, with its huge Greenland and diminished tropics.

At the beginning, there is a photographer looking at the real world; at the end, a viewer looking at a photographic print. In between lies a long, narrow, twisted pipeline called the photographic process, which stretches, squeezes, and rearranges the world. Each segment of that pipeline adds its own biases that emphasize its strengths and introduce new weaknesses. The photographer and printer direct the overall interpretation, but results are equally controlled by the characteristics and limitations of each of the components of that process--the film, the paper, and human vision. For photographers to make truly excellent prints, they need to understand how the entire photographic pipeline works and how they can manipulate it to their ends. To extend Adams' metaphor, although a master printer can produce a superb print from a less-than-masterful slide or negative, it's a lot better to have a great score and play in a good hall.

One can be an entirely competent printer yet still not know how to make quality prints. Understanding the twists and turns in the photographic pipeline, taking advantage of the components' strengths and knowing where the weaknesses lie is how one makes truly effective photographic prints. As photographers, we try to photograph what we see. Even if our ultimate objective is to utterly transform that vision in the darkroom or the computer, we usually begin with what our eyes perceive, and we always end with what the viewer sees in our images. Densitometric measurements do not define a superb print; the viewer's reactions do. Only a handful of printers know much about what viewers actually see when they look at a print. You must understand something of that, or you won't be able to figure out what your printing objectives are; you'll be like a gourmet cook who doesn't know what tastes good. Consequently, the very first chapter is about human vision because that's critical to understanding how we choose to make photographs, how we need to print them and display them, and the ways in which those prints cannot live up to our expectations.

We're not talking about creating art, per se; we are talking about how the many steps in the photographic process confine the artist and about what those steps' potentials are so that the artist can create art that speaks to the viewer in the way the artist wishes it to. Films simply don't see the world the way humans do; they do not reproduce color or tone as we see it. Few photographers really understand how the film sees light differently from humans; it's the next twist in the pipeline and the subject of the second chapter of this book. Most darkroom workers do not really understand how their print materials respond during printmaking--yet another bend and another chapter.

Although I hope that you will sit down and read this book cover to cover, I'm a realist. Each chapter stands on its own as much as possible. When chapters build on material that I have covered previously, I'll point this out and direct you to the appropriate portions of the book. I've put as much of the theory in the early chapters as I possibly could. If you just want to learn from my techniques and don't care (or already know) how they and why they're important, you can skip ahead.

I believe that why you do something in the darkroom is perhaps even more important to knowing how to make truly fine prints than is knowing what to do. Mere technique won't make you a great printer; you also need to understand your goals. This book will help you understand where you're going and how to get there.

CHAPTER 9

Tricks of the Trade


Keep Those Negatives Popped
Making Black and White Prints from Color Negatives and Slides
How to Process Black and White Prints in Color Processors
Control Strips
 RA-4 Strips
R-3 Strips
Room Temperature RA-4 and R-3000
Effect of Drying on Color and Contrast in Black and White Papers
What About Dye Transfer?

Save a Tree: Learn to Print

A friend asked how many sheets of color paper it takes me to get a good print. It seems he had resumed printing after a moderate hiatus and found himself using 7 to 14 sheets to get the print exactly right. He felt he ought to do better than that. I felt he could do a lot better.

I use about 0.2 sheets per negative for the proof sheet (two half-sheets and one full sheet to make a good proof of 10 medium-format negatives). With the proof sheet to guide me, I need an average of two half-sheets for test prints. Sometimes, I get the print after one test, but just as often I find I have to make a third test. There's another sheet for the final print. One of three or four times, I look at that print and realize I missed a burn-in or some such subtlety. That adds another 0.3 sheets, on average. Total: 2.5 sheets to get a cropped, color-balanced, masked, and dodged and burnt-in final print that would make any custom lab proud.

I'm not counting the obvious blunders, such as failing to stop down the lens or flip in the filter pack in the color head. I still commit goofs like this frequently enough to embarrass me. Even counting all my brain-dead mistakes, I use well under 3 sheets of paper per final print. Part of the reason for this low level of waste is decades of experience and a very good eye. It typically takes me 3.5 to 4 sheets to get a good black and white (B&W) print. I think the difference is primarily because 95% of my printing these days is color, so I'm always a little rusty when it comes to B&W. The rest of the savings come from my economical tricks and techniques.

First, I proof all my negatives religiously. I'm 10 years behind in making enlargements, but my proof files are up to date. Good proof sheets provide accurate information about the relative color balance and density of negatives and show what areas of the image will need local exposure correction. I make my proofs with the enlarger height set for the same print magnification I would use to make an 8 x 10 print from the negatives I am proofing. I write the exposure data in my printing log and on the edge of the proof sheet for future reference (Plate 1).

Plate 1 A typical proof sheet, punched to fit a three-ring binder. In the white border, I've written the filing code for this roll of film (071491-3, meaning the third roll I exposed on July 14, 1991) and the exposure information for the sheet. In this case, I printed at f/11 with a "D"-type diffusing chamber in my SuperChromega enlarger. The filter pack was 39 CC magenta plus 45 CC yellow. Exposure times were 16 or 22 seconds, depending on the negative. In the lower corner is the date I made this proof sheet and a code indicating the brand of paper it was printed on.

If you work with slides, you don't absolutely need to make proof sheets, but remember that it is difficult to judge the relative density and color balance of two slides on a light box because the human eye tends to normalize the appearance of "luminous" objects like backlit slides. Worse, different brands of slides require different print filtration even if they look identical on the light table (see Chapter 1). You can't rely on your eye to tell you whether an Ektachrome 64 slide will need the same filter pack as a Fujichrome Velvia slide did. If you've had trouble estimating the exposure for your slide prints, start making proof sheets. They will solve the problem.

I derive my starting filter pack and paper grade from the proof sheet. I don't mean that I blindly use the same exposure settings; I treat the proof sheet like a first test print to which I'm applying corrections. I don't use a densitometer or an on-easel color analyzer. I've got nothing against them, but they don't improve my productivity. If they help you, more power to you! Video analyzers are another matter. I think they're great; if only I could afford one. I do use Kodak Print Viewing Filters. They're worth their weight in platinum.

One can't do precise color correction or selection of paper contrast (B&W or color) until the exposure's in the ball park, but one can correct gross errors. If the first test looks 40 CC too cyan, it doesn't matter how bad the exposure was--you know you have to wipe out some of that cyan. My print tests always include a series of exposure steps. How tightly I cluster the exposure times depends on how confident I am that I know how the neg will print. When I am clueless, the steps may run 5, 7, 10, 14, 20, and 28 seconds. They'll run something like 14, 16, and 18 seconds when I am more sure or when I'm fine-tuning the density. My final print is usually within 1 CC filtration and 3% exposure of what I want.

Don't sneak up on the correct filter pack, contrast, and exposure time from one direction because that produces a lot of wasted prints. It is much more efficient to overguesstimate the correction. You will then have test prints that bracket the correct filter pack or paper grade. One can always interpolate more accurately than one can extrapolate.

Box-to-box consistency for any particular color or B&W paper is now very good. Kodak Portra II shows less than 5 CC variation, for example. Switching from brand to brand can be a different story. Kodak Portra II and Supra need almost identical exposures, but Ultra is very different--roughly a stop faster with about 15 CC less red filtration. Some Fuji papers have almost the same filter packs (as each other and as Portra II); others don't. Note that this can all go out the window when a product line changes. For instance, Polymax II B&W paper doesn't look at all like the original Polymax--paper grades are anywhere from a half-contrast grade to two grades different.

For color, I write the relative filter pack used on each box of paper. For example, I made prints that matched as closely as possible using my current batches of Portra II and Fujicolor FA-C. I found that FA-C needed 71% of the exposure of Portra II and a -7M, -9Y filter change, so I wrote that on the Fuji box. Thus, if I try a print on one paper and don't like it, I can go to the other with almost no waste.

You can also record relative filter packs for films. It may not be accurate without carefully matched negatives or slides, but you'll have some sense of what exposure a "normal" print from each roll of film requires. Even if your relative film data are no closer than a half-stop and 10 CC, it's still a lot better than printing blind. It's also worth noting the relative packs for images shot under incandescent, fluorescent, and sunlight. By keeping track of films' relative filter packs, you'll save yourself a lot of frustration, wasted time, and paper. Tape a little card with the starter packs on the wall near your enlarger.

I save darkroom time with an old trick for previewing wet color prints. If you take a wet chromogenic print, wipe the excess water off the surface, and immerse it in a tray of Rapid Fixer or Color Fixer concentrate, the bluish veil over the image immediately clears and the print looks exactly as it will after it is dry (this trick does not work with Ilfochrome).

I rinse a print in water for about 15 seconds to clear out the orange bleach stain before the print goes into the fixer concentrate. I pull the print from the fixer, ready for inspection. If the print is good, I fully wash it. If it's bad, I can make another print a minute or so after the first print exited the processor. You haven't lived until you've enjoyed this kind of turnaround on making test prints.

Finally, I keep a printing log of every print I make. I write down the date of printing, print title, negative number, print size, paper used, filter pack and exposure data, whether I had used a contrast-control mask, and any dodging or burning-in I did. This helps me home in on a correct filter pack for other negatives on that roll and on others. It beats starting cold!

Periodically, I type up my logs, which go back more than 20 years. About 12 years ago, I started typing the data into a simple Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, with entry macros to handle repetitive formatting. The spreadsheet allows me to reorganize these order-of-printing logs. For instance, I've also sorted them by negative number instead of printing date. When I want to find out whether I have printed a particular negative and when (not to mention how), I can easily find it on my sorted-by-negative list. Lately, I've taken this one step further and started scanning my old hand-typed log pages, with an eye toward converting them to my spreadsheet format. Then I'll be able, through the miracle of optical character recognition and some heavy editing, to incorporate all 20-odd years of printing into one database.

All these little tricks keep my printing bill down. My first prints may still be guesses, but they're educated guesses. If you start keeping track of these kinds of data and make good proof sheets, you'll find yourself spending a lot less time in the darkroom (or being a lot closer to caught up than I am).

Keep Those Negatives Popped

Film popping is a persistent source of trouble for those of us who don't religiously use glass negative carriers (yes, I admit it). As your film basks in the toasty glow illuminating the negative stage, it expands. As it expands it flexes, buckles, and shifts position. If you focus your image when the film is cold, it will be out of focus when the film warms up. If you focus when the film is warm, it may be out of focus after the film cools down during the time between when you focused the image and when you began exposing print paper. Obtaining precisely reproducible print sharpness without a glass carrier is impossible for many people.

Although I usually work with a glassless carrier, I manage to get precise focus with an exceptionally simple trick I hit upon over 20 years ago. I don't adjust my focus until I've given the film plenty of time to warm up and stabilize, and I don't turn off the enlarger until after I've made my print exposure. If you start doing the same thing, I guarantee you far less wasted paper due to unsharp prints.

To accomplish this, you will need an under-the-lens filter holder and a sheet of cardboard. Cut out a piece of cardboard that will fit into the filter holder. The next time you print, don't turn off the enlarger lamp after you've got the focus finally set. By doing this, you are only giving the film a chance to cool down and move out of position. Instead, put the cardboard dark slide into the filter holder to block off the light. Then you can safely load the paper into your easel with the enlarger lamp on. It won't take more than a few seconds to turn off the enlarger light, pull the dark slide, and start the exposure; there is not enough time for the film to cool off and shift focus.

I've been doing this for every single exposure for over two decades. It's the next best thing to printing with a glass carrier, and there are fewer hassles with dust and cleaning.

Making Black and White Prints from Color Negatives and Slides

Sometimes a photographic subject shows the promise of being equally interesting as both a black and white (B&W) print and a color print. The traditional way to deal with this situation is to expose both B&W and color photographs for later printing, but there are two good ways to make B&W prints from color negatives. One is by using Kodak Panalure Select paper, which is a panchromatic B&W resin-coated (RC) paper that develops in any standard B&W paper developer. The second is by using Kodak Ektamax RA paper, a panchromatic RA-4 RC paper that produces a B&W image.

There's also a bad way--printing color negatives onto variable-contrast (VC) paper. I wouldn't even bring this up except that many people seem to think it's a good idea. VC papers supposedly do a better job of printing a color negative than graded papers because VC papers are sensitive to both blue and green light. Unfortunately, VC papers are blind to the cyan-dye image; they render red and yellow as near black

Worse, color negatives are flat by B&W standards, so you'll find yourself printing with a heavy magenta filter pack to get adequate contrast. That means you're throwing away most of the green light. As Figures 9-1 and 9-2 show, VC paper prints color negatives only slightly better than ordinary orthochromatic paper does, and nowhere near acceptably. Compare these figures with the Macbeth chart in Plate 2; all were printed from the same 35 mm Fuji Reala negative (a low-contrast, high-saturation film). Both the VC and graded paper prints render reds, yellows, and greens far too dark (notice what happens to the daffodil) and blues far too light. You can see the impact of these distortions on a pictorial scene in Plate 3 and Figures 9-6 and 9-8. These prints of Lake Shasta and Mt. Lassen were all made from a 120 format Konica Impresa 50 negative (a normal-contrast, normal-saturation film).

Panalure is a slightly warm-tone paper that comes in three widely spaced contrast grades. In terms of midtone contrast, the L, M, and H grades correspond roughly to conventional grades 2, 3.5, and 5 (see Figures 9-3 through 9-5). These papers have unusually long shoulders. The shadows cover a considerable exposure range before they produce a true black, so the total exposure ranges are more like grades 0, 2, and 3.5. Using the same kinds of specialized developers that B&W printers use, you can modify the paper contrasts. Unfortunately, Panalure only comes in F surface and has ugly veiling unless you heat-dry it (see Chapter 11).

You usually have to use some filtration to get accurate color rendition in a panchromatic print. I printed Figure 9-3 and Figure 9-5 with no corrective filtration. As you can see by comparing it with Plate 2, the reds and pinks are too dark relative to the other colors. Figure 9-4 shows the improvement that adding 35 CC yellow and 45 CC red makes.

Plate 2 This is a Macbeth Chart, photographed on 35mm Fuji Reala film and printed on Kodak Portra II paper. This chart is an excellent test subject because it is standardized and reproducible and is made up of both realistic and difficult-to-photograph color patches.

Figure 9-1 Figures 9-1 through 9-5 were printed from the same 35mm Fuji Reala negative used to print Plate 2. This print is on grade 4 Kodak Kodabrome II RC paper. The reds are black and the yellows dark gray. The daffodil in the background is almost black.


Figure 9-2 This print, printed on Ilford Multigrade IV RC paper, with 150 CC magenta filtration to produce the correct overall contrast, is barely better than Figure 9-1. This shows that variable-contrast papers are only a slight improvement over graded papers.

Figure 9-3 Figures 9-3 through 9-5 are on different grades of Kodak Panalure RC paper. This is grade L, the softest. This print and Figure 9-5 were printed with no filtration; the reds and magentas are a little dark compared to the other colors.


Figure 9-4 This print, on Panalure grade M paper, is a little soft, but it's close to the correct contrast. I made this print with a 35 CC yellow + 45 CC magenta filter pack, to correct the tones in the reds. All the colors are a good B&W match in density to the values in Plate 2.

Figure 9-5 This print, on Panalure grade H paper, is much contrastier than Figure 9-4. This would be a good paper for a flat negative. The print is a little too contrasty, although Reala is a low-contrast film. I made this print with no corrective filtration to fix the tones in the reds.

(continued in Part 2)

You can purchase POST EXPOSURE at any fine bookstore or any camera store that carries photography books (if they don't have it in stock, they can order it for you) or directly from Focal Press (ph: 1-800-366-2665). You can also order an autographed copy directly from the author (namely, me).

You can email Ctein at ctein@pobox.com
This material is Copyright ©1998 by Ctein. All rights reserved.