Topic: Will Split Grade Printing save this?

[Heather]

okay, it's a holga neg from WTCD08 so no attacks about how it should be exposed correctly blahblah
This was printed at 10 seconds grade 5 on multigrade RC paper. If I give it more time the highlights start going muddy gray but this print the blacks are more 80% black/gray if you get what I mean.

So if I drop down to grade 1/0 (lots of yellow) do a test strip, get the right amount of detail in the highlights then switch to grade5 again, is it going to preserve the whiter highlights or am I stuffed? 

 I like the ram pictures I took, of course they scan fine but that means they print crap in the darkoom 

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[Pete_R]

Seems what you need is more contrast and it's not possible to get that through split grade printing. Maybe a different paper or developer might give you more contrast?

[Andrea.]

Maybe, pre-flash the paper

• - a lot, then print G5 and dip the thing in bleach and then sepia then the muddy greys turn a nice brown :-)

[SuzanneR]

Split grade is great for negs with a lot of contrast... holga negs are usually pretty thin, and this one looks like it's thin, and you need more contrast. You could try to intensify the negative in selenium toner, and see if you can pull a better print from it that way.

Or embrace it as is... keep it flat???

[Francois]

Or you could try a paper negative.
Once you get your first print, you can use a charcoal pencil on the back to manipulate the shadows. On the second print (negative), you use the same pencil to manipulate the highlights.

Also, you can use Mortensen's old trick of making instant POP!
You start by taking your paper (I don't know if it works with RC) and sticking it for 2 minutes into the developer before exposure.
Stick the paper on a sheet of glass and squeegee the excess developer. Put the whole setup under the enlarger and expose the image. You should see the image appear and disappear on the paper in a strange way. You can inspect the image by turning off the enlarger. If it's not up to your taste, continue the exposure. The exposure is completed when the highlights show sufficient detail. If blacks are not dark enough, you can put the paper back in the developer to increase black density. Stop and fix as usual.

Contrast is controlled by the duration of the exposure. The longer the exposure, the lower the contrast (just like POP). Don't be afraid to use the aperture on the lens to control the amount of light that hits the paper.

If you want the long explanation of "why it works", I can post it later (it's somewhat long).

Try it and let us know how it turns out. It works on FB but as I said, I don't know if it works on RC.

[Pete_R]

I can't see the 'instant POP ' method would increase the contrast beyond that available through normal processing. My understanding is that the maximum contrast of VC paper is fixed by the characteristic of the high contrast emulsion so why would this make a difference. Maybe using a different developer which may change the characteristic would help but why does pre-developing the paper help.

I think we need the long explanation Francois...

[Heather]

I did ponder printing it a bit darker and then try pot.ferri. bleach back a little. I don't have any selenium toner But I guess I can go buy some to try it out. Does it really help that much? I've heard of it occasionally and heard the toner reeks 

Any recommendations for higher contrast developers for Ilford Multigrade RC?  I could always do with something like that on hand for the toy cam negs.

Hm... is chromium intensifer *that* bad? I've heard bad things about it because it's chromium but I do gum bichromate prints and I've not died yet... and this stuff is already in solution (Fotospeed's 150ml liquid is only ?5 from my favourite photo shop).

[Francois]

OK, here is the long story of how instant POP works...
On regular paper, contrast is fixed.
But POP works differently. It is a self masking process. Consider it like if the paper did dodge & burn itself automatically. This allows great control over the contrast range. Incredibly dense and contrasty negatives can be printed with normal contrast. That's why it was so used in the early days of photography.

The way it works technically is that the lighter parts of the negative make the image darken fast while the dark parts of the image keep recording detail. It's that simple. By controlling the amount of light that hits the paper, you can even out the contrast range.

Since this can produce a lower contrast image on grade 6 paper, it stands a better chance of providing a more even negative. By working differently than normal paper,  I think it might be a solution. Besides, all it costs is one sheet of paper to get the idea and see if it could work.

Don't forget, the longer the exposure, the lower the contrast. And since it works by inspection, you can pull it whenever you feel ready.

As far as high contrast developers, there's only the lithprint process (using litho developer) that could yield higher contrast.

[Pete_R]

OK, here is the long story of how instant POP works...
<snip>

I don't think this will help Heather as the self masking will only ever reduce the contrast - she needs to increase it. The shadow areas which receive the most exposure will self mask which will reduce the exposure received in those areas making them less dense whereas the highlight areas will have little or no self masking so won't be effected. Overal result is a decrease in the contrast.

At least, that's my interpretation.

[Andrea.]

I must admit I'm not entirely convinced that increasing the contrast is the answer. Seems like the highlights are nearly blown out and the blacks are too deep in places. Has anyone tried a digi manipulation on this to try the options ?

[Pete_R]

I must admit I'm not entirely convinced that increasing the contrast is the answer. Seems like the highlights are nearly blown out and the blacks are too deep in places. Has anyone tried a digi manipulation on this to try the options ?

I was going on what Heather originally said about the blacks being only 80% black and assumed she wants them 100% black, which would need an increase in contrast if the highlights are not going to go muddy.

Having said that, I did think a bit of burning in round the bottom might make it work but, without seeing the original, it's difficult to tell for sure.

[Heather]

it's a thin negative, slightly underexposed, yes I'd like white highlights and black shadow areas, sorry, I'm weird. I'm also weird in that I don't like lith prints. I'll just chromium intensitify the negative and hope that'll sort out the highlights. I really doubt they're blocked up. I didn't do extra developing for this roll either  Digi manip not really an option, it's cute digi-manipulated to be high contrast (see previous WTCD post for the scan of the negative) but this is for a print exchange on APUG. I don't do digital-based printing anyway.

[Andrea.]

Digi manip not really an option, it's cute digi-manipulated to be high contrast (see previous WTCD post for the scan of the negative) but this is for a print exchange on APUG. I don't do digital-based printing anyway.

I see. I was thinking about using the digi route to see what a higher cntrast would be like. Looks like you have a job on your hands :-)

[Francois]

I don't think chromium intensification will do much for underexposure. If there is nothing recorded on the negative, it can't add detail there. All you'll get is bigger grain.

The reason I was thinking instant POP is that while it lowers contrast (Andrea said she was thinking of split grade printing since a part of the negative seemed to beg for a grade 1 while some other parts need grade 5) it also evens it out. This gives a better chance of success... it also makes it easier to make a paper negative with selective dodging using pencil.

[LT]

as already said ... if you're at grade 5 and still not enough contrast, you're not going to get any more.  I'd experiment at overprinting then bleach back (followed by some toning if you want, or just refix after washing out the bleach).

[Heather]

I don't think chromium intensification will do much for underexposure. If there is nothing recorded on the negative, it can't add detail there. All you'll get is bigger grain.

I'm not looking for more detail, I'm looking for brighter highlights while keeping the background black. So I think intensification is what I want as long as it makes the highlights darker on the negative. I want those highlights to stay the same while the rests stays dark.
This is the same print but darker (20seconds which was what the other images on the roll were so I was just going with the flow in the darkroom) so the highlights aren't blocked up, there is detail there, I just want the negative darker which will bring it into line I think.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[Francois]

I guess that when you really want to print a negative and it won't come out like you want it to, anything is worth trying...

Just think outside the box...