The Lake Beckons

One last observation here on my part. I actually don't love this picture all that much. I continued the discussion because, as @David M points out, aesthetic back-and-forth is of considerable value.

But - for me at least - I normally would need to care about an image in order to spend the time tuning it. And ... I just don't real care about this one a bunch. Yes, the clouds are dramatic, but the overall environment is static and generally uninteresting. This is the curse of shooting in the US Midwest. There is neither compelling topology- mostly - nor ancient ruins ("ancient" in the US is 200 years old) - mostly. Places like the Lake District and Wales in the UK or the American West offer considerably richer overall environments to contextualize a nature shot like this.

So why do I persist in shooting stuff like this? It's great exercise. It is an artistic pushup that strengthens my vision. Learning to really see things near where you live is the hardest thing you do as a photographer (or painter). I am not from this part of the world and when I first came here, I just hated the light. It can be flat, hazy, and generally lacking the ability to provide texture to an image. Now, some decades later, I've made peace with the light as it is, and it has responded by incrementally revealing subtlety I missed the first 100 - was it 1000 - images I shot here.

Shooting things I don't much care about has made me better at shooting the things I do love. So ... I persist in shooting as often as possible even if the output is repetitive, uninspired, or just plain boring. I need the pushups ...
 
It’s a perfectly charming picture, even if you think it isn’t the best one ever made. I don’t doubt that the good citizens of Wales envy your opportunities.
It’s been useful to discuss matters of composition. Thank you for your patience.
We don’t often see discussions on printing, or on developing prints.

May I stir things up a bit by asking what kind of Eye of Newt you used for the print and what system of agitation? For some photographers, the print can be very nearly as interesting as the negative.
We might even generate a thread on an exact Pantone reference for stop-baths.
 
David M said:
It’s a perfectly charming picture, even if you think it isn’t the best one ever made. I don’t doubt that the good citizens of Wales envy your opportunities.
It’s been useful to discuss matters of composition. Thank you for your patience.
We don’t often see discussions on printing, or on developing prints.

May I stir things up a bit by asking what kind of Eye of Newt you used for the print and what system of agitation? For some photographers, the print can be very nearly as interesting as the negative.
We might even generate a thread on an exact Pantone reference for stop-baths.
Click to expand...

My printing regimen is fairly standardized. I VC split print using an elderly Zone VI VC cold light head and an circa 1950s Omega D-2 pushup enlarger. The enlarger has been aligned with a laser tool to ensure - as best is practical with an old mechanical beast like this - that the plane of the carrier, lens board, and projection surface are all parallel.

The cold light is turned on about 30-45min before use to allow the preheater to bring it to full temperature. The light is then measured with a Luna Pro on the easel to make sure the light source hasn't changed output significantly. I do this because I record my entire "recipe" for each print on the chance I want to make another or vary it slight from prior work (as I did in this case). Ensuring the light output is constant is to remove one variable from this process of repetition.

I print nearly everything on Fomabrom Variant 111 VC FB. The developer is Dektol diluted 1:2 for 2 min @68F nominal, corrected for temp using the temperature-driven thermometer I designed and have mentioned here in the past. Stop is 28% acetic acid 6oz/gallon, 20-30 seconds. Fix is Ilford Hypam 1:4 for 1 min.

The print then is washed in slowly running water (mostly the output of my print washer splashing onto it) for 5 min. Then 5min in PermaWash 3oz/gallon, and then onto Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner 1:40 for whatever time the print demands, never less than 3 min or so. That dilution is variable based on the paper in use.

The print is then washed in a print washing tank in very slowly running water for 60min and laid flat on a screen to dry. The dry print is then flattened in a dry mounting press.

All of this is intended to promote consistency at every step so that the only variable is the interpretive process of VC split printing.

At the moment, I cannot seem to locate my Pantone Reference For Stop Bath. Sadly, it may be lost. I am contemplating a replacement purchase of an instrument to measure the reflected light off the stop bath in degrees Kelvin...
 
Alan Clark said:
Can you explain what you mean by "VC split printing" ?
Click to expand...

Sure. In ordinary use, one either selects a filter grade (if using fixed grade VC filters) or blends soft- and hard light from a VC light source to get the desired grade. The problem with this is that it assigns that grade to the entire print.

But optimally made prints often/usually need different grades in different parts of the print. Split VC printing works by exposing and burning/dodging the print first with only the max soft light (or filter). Then this is repeated for max hard light (or filter). In any given area of the print, the local contrast is therefore defined by the ratio of soft- to hard light.

In the image in question, for instance, the area from the tree line up received far more hard light than below the tree line, This made the sky and clouds darker. From the treeline down to the waterline, there was more soft light and far less hard light to preserve the shadow details. The water was exposed with about equal amount of soft- and hard light (approximately). This gives the image distinct local contrasts across 3 major portions of the image geometry.

Questions and requests for clarification welcome.

P.S. I believe this is also sometimes called "Split Filter Printing" in the usual literature.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I asked because split grade printing can mean different things to different people. It can be grade 0/grade 5 printing as you have described. Or it can be printing with what seems the best filter, then burning in selected areas with a different grade.
 
Alan Clark said:
Thanks. I asked because split grade printing can mean different things to different people. It can be grade 0/grade 5 printing as you have described. Or it can be printing with what seems the best filter, then burning in selected areas with a different grade.
Click to expand...

I think there are many means to the same end: Controlling local contrast optimally for each portion of the print geometry. Over the years, I have found - at least for me - that the process I described is the least error prone and most repeatable.
 
You mentioned earlier that you use an enlarger with a cold light head. Does this give you the same contrast range that you would get with Ilford type filters and a warm light?
 
Alan Clark said:
You mentioned earlier that you use an enlarger with a cold light head. Does this give you the same contrast range that you would get with Ilford type filters and a warm light?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. It's been decades since I used an incandescent bulb and individual filters - Kodak Polycontrast in my case - so I don't know how my VC cold light compares. I do know that the VC head - being a diffusion light source - tends to produce lower contrast than a condenser based system. That means I have to design my negative contrast with that in mind. The advantage, of course, is that a diffuse light source will mask negative imperfections better, as a condenser head renders every scratch or dust spot in razor like detail.

My guess - and that's all it is - is that if you calibrate your process to your light source reasonably well, either method will give you full contrast range.

P.S. On my To Do list is to build my own modern LED-based VC head using the new LED arrays available from China. I have a general idea of how do it it, but haven't had the time to pursue it. If successful, it would give me the means to build a light source capable of covering a 10x8 negative.
 
Alan Clark said:
You mentioned earlier that you use an enlarger with a cold light head. Does this give you the same contrast range that you would get with Ilford type filters and a warm light?
Click to expand...

The term Cold is referring to a Cold Cathode tube, a type of fluorescent tube, shaped like an electric grill element, they give very even lighting through a usually large diffuser.

In theory (and it's true) they don't give quite as wide a range of grades with VC papers, in terms of the extremes of high and low contrast. However, in practice most of us never get close to those extremes, so it's not an issue.

Ian
 
I originally fitted my home-made 5x4 enlarger with a cold-light fluorescent light source, many years ago. This didn't give the full range of contrast when used with Ilford multigrade filters. And the change from grade to grade wasn't even. When LED bulbs became available I altered the head to take 4 x 2700K LED bulbs. This worked very well, and in contrast terms gave identical results to the way the filters performed with an old incandescent bulb - which they were designed for. A big advantage of LED's is that they don't give off any heat. My enlarger has diffused perspex above the negative, and I use the filters in a holder below the lens. Very simple.
 
Alan Clark said:
I originally fitted my home-made 5x4 enlarger with a cold-light fluorescent light source, many years ago. This didn't give the full range of contrast when used with Ilford multigrade filters. And the change from grade to grade wasn't even. When LED bulbs became available I altered the head to take 4 x 2700K LED bulbs. This worked very well, and in contrast terms gave identical results to the way the filters performed with an old incandescent bulb - which they were designed for. A big advantage of LED's is that they don't give off any heat. My enlarger has diffused perspex above the negative, and I use the filters in a holder below the lens. Very simple.
Click to expand...

Thanks to your reminder, I've just ordered a spiral LED array from China that will serve as a basis for my VC head implementation. I need to compare the spectra of these LEDs against the sensitivity curves of the VC papers I use, but I am pretty sure I can make this work.
 
Alan Clark said:
I originally fitted my home-made 5x4 enlarger with a cold-light fluorescent light source, many years ago. This didn't give the full range of contrast when used with Ilford multigrade filters. And the change from grade to grade wasn't even. When LED bulbs became available I altered the head to take 4 x 2700K LED bulbs. This worked very well, and in contrast terms gave identical results to the way the filters performed with an old incandescent bulb - which they were designed for. A big advantage of LED's is that they don't give off any heat. My enlarger has diffused perspex above the negative, and I use the filters in a holder below the lens. Very simple.
Click to expand...

The original fixed spectrum CL heads where designed for use with graded papers. They needed a color correction filter installed in order to be properly used with VC paper. Failing to do this absolutely would limit the range of contrast available with external filters.

However, the head I am using is a Zone VI variable contrast cold light that was specifically designed to provide the range of colors needed to control VC papers. That is, the light source itself produces a range of colors and does not depend on external filtration. It manages the entire range of paper contrast well in my experience, though I have not tested this analytically.

The problem with that head, though, is that it has to preheat to get consistent results and the light output is relatively low (as compared to a mixing chamber or condenser system). My hope for the LED lights source I want to design and build is that it will be cooler, brighter, and more light stable than the existing head. We'll see.

P.S. I am aware that Heiland make a rather impressive aftermarket LED VC light source but my instinctive parsimony hesitates to drop $2000 US to get one of these. If my own experiment fails, then that may be the next step. See:

www.catlabs.info

Heiland LED Cold Light Source for any Enlarger (Color/BW) SPECIAL ORDER

• SPECIAL ORDER • Brand new • Special order item, 3 week lead time • LED cold light source, for any enlarger • Replace the current light source of your enlarger with a modern, stable and long-term LED panel light (replacing lamps is no longer necessary) • Individual adaptation to specific...
www.catlabs.info www.catlabs.info
 
Alan Clark said:
I originally fitted my home-made 5x4 enlarger with a cold-light fluorescent light source, many years ago. This didn't give the full range of contrast when used with Ilford multigrade filters. And the change from grade to grade wasn't even. When LED bulbs became available I altered the head to take 4 x 2700K LED bulbs. This worked very well, and in contrast terms gave identical results to the way the filters performed with an old incandescent bulb - which they were designed for. A big advantage of LED's is that they don't give off any heat. My enlarger has diffused perspex above the negative, and I use the filters in a holder below the lens. Very simple.
Click to expand...

I remember when the original tube failed in my De Vere Cold Cathode head I'd only just changed to MCC as Record Rapid had been discontinued. The new tube gave better results in terms of contrast range. It was an expensive replacement around £75 in the very early 1990s.

Ian
 
Alan Clark said:
my home-made 5x4 enlarger .. My enlarger has diffused perspex above the negative, and I use the filters in a holder below the lens. Very simple.
Click to expand...

If it is not too much of a trouble, can you give details of the construction of your home-made 4x5 enlarger?
 
Hi Raghu. I can't photograph it as it is temporarily wrapped up in storage. My darkroom is in my painting studio. This has become a guitar making workshop of late, and I have been making some classical guitars. To gain more space I removed the 5x4 enlarger.
I will do my best to describe it.
The column isn't home-made. It came off a Meopta Opemus 6 enlarger, which has a column that slopes forward off its baseboard. I mount this column on the wall, using wooden brackets at the top and bottom. The Opemus 6 head plugs onto the column utilising a metal spigot that plugs into the moving part of the column, and can be locked in place. I made a replacement metal spigot, and fixed it to a wide strip of 18mm thick MDF. Attached to this strip is the lamphouse, a lightweight box made from thin MDF. The bottom of the lamphouse is open, i.e. it has no bottom. The bellows are attached to it. just above the bellows are side rails that support the negative holder, so it can be slid in and out. Above this, inside the box, is the diffuser screen. Mine is diffused Perspex. Above this, near the top of the box, is a square wooden board that holds four bulb holders. These hold MDF bulbs - 2800K warm white 11W ( 75 watt equivalent.) Their height above the diffuser screen is determined by trial and error. Too low and the illumination won't be even. Too high and you lose light intensity. The top of the box is removeable.
Making a focussing mechanism isn't easy. My DIY 5x4 enlarger initially had a mechanism taken off an old medium format enlarger. My current one is home made. It consists of a horizontal 18mm MDF board. The bellows are attached to the top of it, and the enlarger lens to its underside. The board is supported by side MDF brackets which slide up and down on the enlargers fixed back board, and which can be locked in place when the enlarger is focussed. A cam action lever moves it up and down. Difficult to explain! I won't recommend the method I used as it leaves room for improvement and I will be modifying it before I re-install it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top