This weekend I was working in a local community art center darkroom. A new student was asking a couple of us for printing advice. After seeing her growing frustration, we realized that we were each giving her advice based on our personal printing techniqes, which vary in some significant ways. This led me to question some of the fundamentals that I've been working with over the 3 years I've been printing. I wanted to ask the question here and see the range of VC printing techniques.

I almost always begin my work prints on a #1 filter, working to establish a good exposure to get the highlights right. I'll then move up or down the filter scale to get the shadows to the right density. Once I've got the contrast right (or pretty close) sometimes I find myself re-adjusting the exposure slightly. (This happens most often when there aren't really any solid white highlights in the picture.)

The other experienced printer begins her prints with no filter at all. After she's got her exposure down for the highlights, she'll only then consider adding a filter to change the contrast.

I would think that starting with no filter would mean you'll have to adjust the exposure a lot more once you start adding filters. Her point is that you need to start with the lowest possible contrast, because it's easier to evaluate prints with increasing contrast than decreasing contrast.

Ultimately I don't think there's a "right" answer; both of us are able to get prints we like, and that's the important thing. However, I'm very willing to consider changes to my techniques. I may do some experimenting but I'm working through a large set of negatives at the moment so I'm reluctant to start experimenting until I have a bit more free time. So, I'd like to hear any opinions on the above issue, and perhaps some details on your work process for VC printing. My apologies for a rather basic question!

Cheers, Dave

-- Dave Ciskowski (cisko@eudoramail.com), July 09, 2001

Answers

While it's better to evaluate from low contrast to high, if you are consistant with your negative processing and consistantly end up printing at a 2 filter or higher, then why bother starting with a 1 filter. Look at your negative and make that determination before you make your test strips. You are right regarding exposure without a filter. It's a waste of time working without the filter. As soon as you put the filter in you have to reevaluate the exposure. Also, the actual contrast without the filter is supposed to be at 2, but depending on the paper you use, it might vary.

-- ricardo (ricardospanks1@yahoo.com), July 09, 2001.

i started printing in the late 80's - and almost all the really good paper was graded. and its only in the last few years that i've overcome my skepticism regarding vc papers. which good. its nice to just have one box of paper instead of three.

but the way i print with vc is much like how i printed with graded papers. i start out usually with a 2 1/2 filter and evaluate exposure and contrast and make adjustments, working slowly until i find the point where everything comes together.

for three years i worked as a custom printer in a commercial lab. in such a place the whole thing is to get the best print in the least amount of time with the least amount of hassle. so there isn't any of this try try try sort of thing. i learned to just look at the neg make the best guess as to filter and exposure and maybe make a few adjustments, burn, dodge and bammo - fairly nice print. after a few weeks of doing this 8 hours a day it gets easy to just know what to do.

so. right. basically that's it. no split filtering. i often find that in the process of changing filters, focus gets bumped or misalignment happens. but that probobly due to aged equipment i often find myself using. so make a guess. and then work from there. not fancy but it works.

-- James L. (jl@mollymail.com), July 09, 2001.

I've always been told and have told less experienced printers than I that you should start with a number 2 filter. First figure out your best exposure than futz around with the contrast. It's always worked for me.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), July 09, 2001.

Dave,

If your friend doesn't use any filter at all for the initial work print then depending on your enlarger light source the initial contrast may actually be higher than starting with a #1 filter. How, then, can she work up to the correct contrast?

For what it's worth, I follow roughly the same procedure as you do but I start with a 2 1/2 filter at a standard printing time based on my calibration. I've bought into exposing for the correct highlight tone first followed by choosing contrast because it's very similar to the Zone System which I've grown comfortable using.

-- Bong Munoz (bong@techie.com), July 09, 2001.

The no-filter situation is a point outside the time-space-filter continuum. It might be similar to a #2 or it might not and it seems like extra effort to start there. I was taught to aim for good prints with #2, but there's also some logic for choosing #3 as normal. See Anchell & Troop. If you're doing most of your printing around #1, it might be a signal that you need to be less aggressive on agitation or reduce development time. That's actually my problem right now. I use very gentle agitation and need to cut my times a bit. I don't see any reason to start with other than my nominal filtration, and adjust from there. Why make a flat print so you can make a good one later? Also, if you use very low filter numbers, watch out for curve splitting. The paper curve can develop a flat spot with lousy tonal separation in the shadows. OTOH, if what you're doing works well for you- don't mess with it!!

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), July 10, 2001.

Thanks to all for the responses. This is quite helpful. Both my friend and I are printing on Ilford Multigrade IV FB, so I went to their website and grabbed the technica l data on Multigrade IV FB from the Ilford web site. It does state that unfiltered contrast is equivalent to a #2 filter. The paper speed is listed as ISO P200 for #00 - #3 1/2; ISO P100 for #4-#5, and ISO P500 for unfiltered -- so that will vary the exposure time by a significant factor. I'm not sure if she automatically takes that into account or not; I'll ask her when I see her this weekend.

I was surprised that many people tend to start at a #2 or even higher. I was taught that it's easier to evaluate increasing contrast than decreasing -- that less contrasty prints will tend to look flat after seeing something more contrasty, even if the lower contrast print is overall a better representation. I also tend to start with a #1 because my negatives tend to be rather contrasty. I shoot mostly mountain landscapes, so I often have to deal with bright skies and shaded hillsides. Since I'm shooting 35mm it's difficult to use a full Zone System approach, but I could probably bias the whole roll to expose and develop for lower contrast.

Thanks again for all the input!

Cheers, Dave

-- Dave Ciskowski (cisko@eudoramail.com), July 11, 2001.

Setting the exposure for the hightlights and adjusting contrast for shasows works reasonably well for papers like Agfa Multicontrast Premium but doesn't seem to work too well with your favourite Ilford MGIV.

I shoot contrasty scenes often, as you do, and I prefer contrasty hightlights on negative image at the cost of doing lots of burning in. (then I can never scan that negative satisfactorily...) I like Agfa MCP because I can adjust shadow-midtone contrast rather independently from hightlight density and contrast... all these are irrelevant to what you asked.

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), July 12, 2001.