jeffersoncasey wrote:
Please don't mind my words, just a way to convey about the contrast. I admire the tonality of the series
However, it must be said that the tonal values of the final print depend crucially on the processing during enlargement. A perfect negative, simply printed straight, is rather the exception, unless you're working with controlled lighting or individual negatives, no matter how well you control your negative processing. At the time the photograph in question was taken, I was still tinkering around quite aimlessly in this regard (the restriction to ONE film type with densitometry tested development came later), and so the contact print shown below illustrates quite well what a straight print on grade 3 would have looked like. Back then, all of this required a certain amount of experience, since when printing you had nothing to judge other than the negative and, if applicable, the contact print, from which you had to estimate what you were creating under the enlarger. Unlike today, of course, you couldn't see, control, or undo these adjustments. Or to put it another way, the true nature of the work only became apparent once the print was developed and the light could be switched on. Strictly speaking, it could only be properly assessed once the print was fixed, washed, and dried over night, because the highlights brightened somewhat during washing, and the entire print darkened considerably during drying. This additional darkening couldn't simply be compensated for by a shorter exposure time. It was quite demanding if you wanted to get it just right. And it could be quite nerve-wracking at times.On the other hand, it was incredibly fun, and you ended up with a unique piece that you had handcrafted yourself from start to finish. That was fantastic, and I completely miss that in digital photography.
Incidentally, while the highlights in the print are also overexposed, they don't appear as severely blown out as in the scan. Nothing beats a physical original.😉
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Please don't mind my words, just a way to convey about the contrast. I admire the tonality of the series
However, it must be said that the tonal values of the final print depend crucially on the processing during enlargement. A perfect negative, simply printed straight, is rather the exception, unless you're working with controlled lighting or individual negatives, no matter how well you control your negative processing. At the time the photograph in question was taken, I was still tinkering around quite aimlessly in this regard (the restriction to ONE film type with densitometry tested development came later), and so the contact print shown below illustrates quite well what a straight print on grade 3 would have looked like. Back then, all of this required a certain amount of experience, since when printing you had nothing to judge other than the negative and, if applicable, the contact print, from which you had to estimate what you were creating under the enlarger. Unlike today, of course, you couldn't see, control, or undo these adjustments. Or to put it another way, the true nature of the work only became apparent once the print was developed and the light could be switched on. Strictly speaking, it could only be properly assessed once the print was fixed, washed, and dried, because the highlights brightened somewhat during washing, and the entire print darkened considerably during drying. This additional darkening couldn't simply be compensated for by a shorter exposure time. It was quite demanding if you wanted to get it just right. And it could be quite nerve-wracking at times.On the other hand, it was incredibly fun, and you ended up with a unique piece that you had handcrafted yourself from start to finish. That was fantastic, and I completely miss that in digital photography.
Incidentally, while the highlights in the print are also overexposed, they don't appear as severely blown out as in the scan. Nothing beats a physical original.😉
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Please don't mind my words, just a way to convey about the contrast. I admire the tonality of the series
However, it must be said that the tonal values of the final print depend crucially on the processing during enlargement. A perfect negative, simply printed straight, is rather the exception, unless you're working with controlled lighting or individual negatives, no matter how well you control your negative processing. At the time the photograph in question was taken, I was still tinkering around quite aimlessly in this regard (the restriction to ONE film type with densitometry tested development came later), and so the contact print shown below illustrates quite well what a straight print on grade 3 would have looked like. Back then, all of this required a certain amount of experience, since when printing you had nothing to judge other than the negative and, if applicable, the contact print, from which you had to estimate what you were creating under the enlarger. Unlike today, of course, you couldn't see, control, or undo these adjustments. Or to put it another way, the true nature of the work only became apparent once the print was developed and the light could be switched on. Strictly speaking, it could only be properly assessed once the print was fixed, washed, and dried, because the highlights brightened somewhat during washing, and the entire print darkened considerably during drying. This additional darkening couldn't simply be compensated for by a shorter exposure time. It was quite demanding if you wanted to get it just right. And it could be quite nerve-wracking at times.On the other hand, it was incredibly fun, and you ended up with a unique piece that you had handcrafted yourself from start to finish. That was fantastic, and I completely miss that in digital photography.
Incidentally, while the highlights in the print are also overexposed, they don't appear as severely blown out as in the scan. Nothing beats a physical original.😉
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Please don't mind my words, just a way to convey about the contrast. I admire the tonality of the series
However, it must be said that the tonal values of the final print depend crucially on the processing during enlargement. A perfect negative, simply printed straight, is rather the exception, unless you're working with controlled lighting or individual negatives, no matter how well you control your negative processing. At the time the photograph in question was taken, I was still tinkering around quite aimlessly in this regard (the restriction to ONE film type with densitometry tested development came later), and so the contact print shown below illustrates quite well what a straight print on grade 3 would have looked like. Back then, all of this required a certain amount of experience, since when printing you had nothing to judge other than the negative and, if applicable, the contact print, from which you had to estimate what you were creating under the enlarger. Unlike today, of course, you couldn't see, control, or undo these adjustments. Or to put it another way, the true nature of the work only became apparent once the print was developed and the light could be switched on. Strictly speaking, it could only be properly assessed once the print was fixed, washed, and dried, because the highlights brightened somewhat during washing, and the entire print darkened considerably during drying. This additional drying couldn't simply be compensated for by a shorter exposure time. It was quite demanding if you wanted to get it just right. And it could be quite nerve-wracking at times.On the other hand, it was incredibly fun, and you ended up with a unique piece that you had handcrafted yourself from start to finish. That was fantastic, and I completely miss that in digital photography.
Incidentally, while the highlights in the print are also overexposed, they don't appear as severely blown out as in the scan. Nothing beats a physical original.😉
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Please don't mind my words, just a way to convey about the contrast. I admire the tonality of the series
However, it must be said that the tonal values of the final print depend crucially on the processing during enlargement. A perfect negative, simply printed straight, is rather the exception, unless you're working with controlled lighting or individual negatives, no matter how well you control your negative processing. At the time the photograph in question was taken, I was still tinkering around quite aimlessly in this regard (the restriction to ONE film type with densitometry tested development came later), and so the contact print shown below illustrates quite well what a straight print on grade 3 would have looked like. Back then, all of this required a certain amount of experience, since when printing you had nothing to judge other than the negative and, if applicable, the contact print, from which you had to estimate what you were creating under the enlarger. Unlike today, of course, you couldn't see, control, or undo these adjustments. Or to put it another way, the true nature of the work only became apparent once the print was developed and the light could be switched on. Strictly speaking, it could only be properly assessed once the print was fixed, washed, and dried, because the highlights brightened somewhat during washing, and the entire print darkened considerably during drying. This additional drying couldn't simply be compensated for by a shorter exposure time. It was quite demanding if you wanted to get it just right. And it could be quite nerve-wracking at times.
Incidentally, while the highlights in the print are also overexposed, they don't appear as severely blown out as in the scan. Nothing beats a physical original.😉
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Please don't mind my words, just a way to convey about the contrast. I admire the tonality of the series
However, it must be said that the tonal values of the final print depend crucially on the processing during enlargement. A perfect negative, simply printed straight, is rather the exception, unless you're working with controlled lighting or individual negatives, no matter how well you control your negative processing. At the time the photograph in question was taken, I was still tinkering around quite aimlessly in this regard (the restriction to ONE film type with electrometrically tested development came later), and so the contact print shown below illustrates quite well what a straight print on grade 3 would have looked like. Back then, all of this required a certain amount of experience, since when printing you had nothing to judge other than the negative and, if applicable, the contact print, from which you had to estimate what you were creating under the enlarger. Unlike today, of course, you couldn't see, control, or undo these adjustments. Or to put it another way, the true nature of the work only became apparent once the print was developed and the light could be switched on. Strictly speaking, it could only be properly assessed once the print was fixed, washed, and dried, because the highlights brightened somewhat during washing, and the entire print darkened considerably during drying. This additional drying couldn't simply be compensated for by a shorter exposure time. It was quite demanding if you wanted to get it just right. And it could be quite nerve-wracking at times.
Incidentally, while the highlights in the print are also overexposed, they don't appear as severely blown out as in the scan. Nothing beats a physical original.😉
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Please don't mind my words, just a way to convey about the contrast. I admire the tonality of the series
However, it must be said that the tonal values of the final print depend crucially on the processing during enlargement. A perfect negative, simply printed straight, is rather the exception, unless you're working with controlled lighting or individual negatives, no matter how well you control your negative processing. At the time the photograph in question was taken, I was still tinkering around quite aimlessly in this regard (the restriction to ONE film type with electrometrically tested development came later), and so the contact print shown below illustrates quite well what a straight print on grade 3 would have looked like. Back then, all of this required a certain amount of experience, since when printing you had nothing to judge other than the negative and, if applicable, the contact print, from which you had to estimate what you were creating under the enlarger. Unlike today, of course, you couldn't see, control, or undo these adjustments. Or to put it another way, the true nature of the work only became apparent once the print was developed and the light could be switched on. Strictly speaking, it could only be properly assessed once the print was fixed, washed, and dried, because the highlights brightened somewhat during washing, and the entire print darkened considerably during drying. This additional drying couldn't simply be compensated for by a shorter exposure time. It was quite demanding if you wanted to get it just right. And it could be quite nerve-wracking at times. 20251207_122539 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
Dec 07, 2025 at 07:02 AM
Previous versions of Nifty Fifty's message #16943386 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
