Mona Kuhn technique

"jjs" wrote

And I was a very good printer, too.
I'm still trying to catch up to where I was then.

Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

--
Robert Zimmerman
Lost somewhere in the north country

"jjs" wrote

And I was a very good printer, too.
I'm still trying to catch up to where I was then.

Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

--
Robert Zimmerman
Lost somewhere in the north country

"PGG" wrote

I never thought a 11x14 print from a 4x5
negative could exhibit grain. But with
Fortepan 400 film, I see grain.

TMax-100, Microdol-X.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"PGG" wrote

I never thought a 11x14 print from a 4x5
negative could exhibit grain. But with
Fortepan 400 film, I see grain.

TMax-100, Microdol-X.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

PGG:

I'd love to hear what you use personally right now. Film, developer,
camera, lenses, any special techniques and etc!!

'blad, Linhof 4x5, Sinar 4x5

Tri-X, Agfa 100, Efke 25, 100
Rodinal all the way.

PGG:

I'd love to hear what you use personally right now. Film, developer,
camera, lenses, any special techniques and etc!!

'blad, Linhof 4x5, Sinar 4x5

Tri-X, Agfa 100, Efke 25, 100
Rodinal all the way.

Thank you Richard,

I agree you completel; I agree about Ilford paper, and I never liked
them that much. I think Kuhn's work is fine but I'm really impressed
by the quality. The images has very good tonality (rich, smooth
mid-tones-to-highlights.) It seems that linear curve film- yes it
could be a pulled Tmax in something like microdol. I think that Pyro
produces that kind of curve with coventional films; it was the closest
I got to those images and printed on VC paper- yet was grainy. But I
can't really believe it's an old technology film in one of the
conventional developers like D-76.... I don't know!

J.


"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message ...
I never know what exactly is meant by tonal separation.
Some seem to mean high contrast, others low contrast, others
just having a good gray scale. In most images it is the
mid-gray tones which are the most important. These are
strongly affected by the characteristic curve of the film
and perhaps a little by the developer. Some films have a
long linear relationship between expsoure and density,
100T-Max and 400T-Max are examples, other films have an
upward sweeping curve, Tri-X sheet film is an example of
this type as were many older "portrait" films. If one makes
negatives of the same subject and prints them for the same
shadow and highlight points the upward sweeping film will
produce darker mid tones than the straight line film. This
is effective for some subjects and not for others. For some
subjects having the mid tones lighter is more appropriate.
Choice of printing paper also affects the rendition. Some
modern papers have a long toe, meant to lower the contast of
the highlights. Ilford's papers seem to be expecially
noticable this way although Kodak does it on some papers.
The idea is to make it easier to get unblocked highlights
from modern films which are capable of very high densities.
Such paper can result in somewhat distorted mid tones when
the negative does not need the highlight compression. To me
Agfa papers have the best "normal" tonal rendition.
Of course, there is no technical data on Mona Kuhn's web
site. It really doesn't matter how the images were made if
you like them but without the data its impossible to guess
at how they were made. My own impression from the web
pictures is that they are just good quality conventional
prints. My earlier remarks about seeing actual high quality
prints is that digital images can be manipulated to such a
degree that one can not always tell much about the
originals. The quality of a good conventional
"silver-gelatin" print can be superb but many never see
examples of how good the quality can be so may be satisfied
with less than this in their own work.
The photographic process was developed to make it easy to
use and to be easy to get good quality. B&W should really
not be much more difficult than using a Xerox machine. BUT,
to get good quality you must follow manufacturers
recommendations and avoid exotic processes or techniques.
This may seem like heresy but it really isn't. When I was
learning photography in about junior highschool I had a
couple of mentors. They were knowlegible and meant well but
I discovered much later that much of what they told me and
led me to do was plain wrong. I suffered much frustration at
that time because I did not understand the importance of
controlling negative contrast and because I was using a
rather off the wall developer. It turns out that the
developer probably caused me to have a lot of bad negatives.
I drifted away from photography during my college years but
came back to it later. When I did I decided to begin over. I
bought all standard chemicals, D-76 and Dektol, and followed
the instructions. Voila, perfect prints! Well not all of
them, but I did not have the trouble I had earlier. I used
very similar equipment, about the only significant
improvment was a better enlarging lens but the one I had in
highschool was not a bad one.
It is amazing to me how much mis-information there is in
photography, it just abounds. The fact is that it is a very
forgiving process so some sort of image will be gotten
almost regardless of what one does. However, its not
difficult to get really good quality. If you follow the
directions in Kodak's little instruction books it will
happen.
I think the images on Mona Kuhn's wet site are very good
technically, their artistic merit is beyond my competence. I
wish I could ask for and get a couple of thousand bucks for
any of my images:-)

Thank you Richard,

I agree you completel; I agree about Ilford paper, and I never liked
them that much. I think Kuhn's work is fine but I'm really impressed
by the quality. The images has very good tonality (rich, smooth
mid-tones-to-highlights.) It seems that linear curve film- yes it
could be a pulled Tmax in something like microdol. I think that Pyro
produces that kind of curve with coventional films; it was the closest
I got to those images and printed on VC paper- yet was grainy. But I
can't really believe it's an old technology film in one of the
conventional developers like D-76.... I don't know!

J.


"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message ...
I never know what exactly is meant by tonal separation.
Some seem to mean high contrast, others low contrast, others
just having a good gray scale. In most images it is the
mid-gray tones which are the most important. These are
strongly affected by the characteristic curve of the film
and perhaps a little by the developer. Some films have a
long linear relationship between expsoure and density,
100T-Max and 400T-Max are examples, other films have an
upward sweeping curve, Tri-X sheet film is an example of
this type as were many older "portrait" films. If one makes
negatives of the same subject and prints them for the same
shadow and highlight points the upward sweeping film will
produce darker mid tones than the straight line film. This
is effective for some subjects and not for others. For some
subjects having the mid tones lighter is more appropriate.
Choice of printing paper also affects the rendition. Some
modern papers have a long toe, meant to lower the contast of
the highlights. Ilford's papers seem to be expecially
noticable this way although Kodak does it on some papers.
The idea is to make it easier to get unblocked highlights
from modern films which are capable of very high densities.
Such paper can result in somewhat distorted mid tones when
the negative does not need the highlight compression. To me
Agfa papers have the best "normal" tonal rendition.
Of course, there is no technical data on Mona Kuhn's web
site. It really doesn't matter how the images were made if
you like them but without the data its impossible to guess
at how they were made. My own impression from the web
pictures is that they are just good quality conventional
prints. My earlier remarks about seeing actual high quality
prints is that digital images can be manipulated to such a
degree that one can not always tell much about the
originals. The quality of a good conventional
"silver-gelatin" print can be superb but many never see
examples of how good the quality can be so may be satisfied
with less than this in their own work.
The photographic process was developed to make it easy to
use and to be easy to get good quality. B&W should really
not be much more difficult than using a Xerox machine. BUT,
to get good quality you must follow manufacturers
recommendations and avoid exotic processes or techniques.
This may seem like heresy but it really isn't. When I was
learning photography in about junior highschool I had a
couple of mentors. They were knowlegible and meant well but
I discovered much later that much of what they told me and
led me to do was plain wrong. I suffered much frustration at
that time because I did not understand the importance of
controlling negative contrast and because I was using a
rather off the wall developer. It turns out that the
developer probably caused me to have a lot of bad negatives.
I drifted away from photography during my college years but
came back to it later. When I did I decided to begin over. I
bought all standard chemicals, D-76 and Dektol, and followed
the instructions. Voila, perfect prints! Well not all of
them, but I did not have the trouble I had earlier. I used
very similar equipment, about the only significant
improvment was a better enlarging lens but the one I had in
highschool was not a bad one.
It is amazing to me how much mis-information there is in
photography, it just abounds. The fact is that it is a very
forgiving process so some sort of image will be gotten
almost regardless of what one does. However, its not
difficult to get really good quality. If you follow the
directions in Kodak's little instruction books it will
happen.
I think the images on Mona Kuhn's wet site are very good
technically, their artistic merit is beyond my competence. I
wish I could ask for and get a couple of thousand bucks for
any of my images:-)

"Jytzel" wrote in message
om...
Thank you Richard,

I agree you completel; I agree about Ilford paper, and I
never liked
them that much. I think Kuhn's work is fine but I'm really
impressed
by the quality. The images has very good tonality (rich,
smooth
mid-tones-to-highlights.) It seems that linear curve film-
yes it
could be a pulled Tmax in something like microdol. I think
that Pyro
produces that kind of curve with coventional films; it was
the closest
I got to those images and printed on VC paper- yet was
grainy. But I
can't really believe it's an old technology film in one of
the
conventional developers like D-76.... I don't know!

J.


Long thread snipped...

D-76 is close to being an optimum developer for a lot of
films. It is also pretty fool proof.
There are a lot of good films on the market although
some have been recently discontinued at lest in some sizes.
The slower the film the more likely they are to give you
smooth tonal rendition. There are several medium speed films
in 120 roll films, Agfa APX 100, Ilford FP-4+, or Kodak
Plus-X all do well. Agfa is the coarsest grain, Plus-X the
finest of the group, not a huge difference. To start try any
of the above and a developer like D-76 diluted 1:1 or Xtol.
I prefer Agfa papers for printing and Kodak second. I've
used Ilford paper in the past but don't like their current
RC papers. There are good print developers made by all of
the big three. Dektol is of course the old standby. For
somewhat more neutral tones try Ilford Bromophen. Agfa makes
the only Phenidone-Ascorbic acid print developer I know of;
Neutol Plus.
Process the film according to the instructions. Be
careful of agitation techniques, Kodak recommends 5 seconds
every 30 seconds, Ilford 10 seconds once a minute. They are
not quite the same so follow the agitation given with the
time/temperature chart you are using.
Even though B&W is not as critical of temperature as
color it is still important to control the temperature if
you want predictible and repeatable development. The
developer temperature should be within on F degree of the
expected temperature. You will note the charts are usualy in
2 F degree steps which tells you that amount of change makes
a significant difference. I use an electronic thermometer
which is calibrated to an accuracy of about 1/2 degree F.
Mine is a CheckTemp made by Hanna Instruments and cost
around $30 US.
For roll film I use old Nikor stainless steel tanks. I
also have a rare Nikor sheet film tank which I use for 4x5.
I also have used tray development and print drums for sheet
film. Trays are fine for small amounts but I am not the most
skillful film shuffler.
T-Max films are excellent but are more sensitive to
variations in development. To get a change in contrast of
one paper grade most films need a change of about 33% in
time, T-Max will change taht much in 20% to 25% change in
time. The film is also more sensitive to agitation and to
temperature. If you work carefully you will not have
problems with excessive contrast.
Kodak charts are for contrast suitable for contact
printing and diffusion enlarging onto Grade 2 paper. In a
condenser enlarger these negatives will print correctly on
Grade 1 paper. If you want to print on Grade 2 you have to
reduce the development time as indicated above and decrease
film speed to about 3/4 of the ISO speed. Ilford gives times
and speeds for a compromise contrast between diffusion and
condenser printing. Agfa seems to use different contrasts
for different charts so you have to look carefully. Agfa
also uses "gamma" a measure of contrast that is not often
used now for pictorial negatives so the numbers are not
directly comparable to those published by either Kodak
(contrast index) or Ilford (average gradient). In any case,
if you follow directions you should be able to figure out
what to do to adjust the negative contrast, or for that
matter, if they need adjustment.
Because paper is developed to "completion" that is, to
the highest density and contrast it is capable of,
development is less critical than for negatives. However
there IS a change in density with change in development
time. To a very limited degree variations in print
development can be used to compensate for small variations
in exposure. Once you reach full devlopment there is little
change in the contrast of papers despite the existence of
low contrast developers (they are just slower) and variable
contrast developers (good for maybe half a grade). I really
like variable contast paper because I can adjust to get the
best print from each negative. One can do this with graded
paper also but then you need to stock a lot of paper. While
any VC filter set will work with any VC paper the contrast
grades and differences and exposure compensation (so called
constant speed) will be right only for the set supplied by
the paper manufacturer. If you are using a color head each
manufacturer will supply you with a chart showing the
correct settings to obtain the contrast you want. Textured
papers will not give you as much conrast as glossy because
the light scattered from the surface washes out the deep
shadows.
I develop prints for around 90 seconds to 2 minutes,
depending on the paper. For fiber base paper I sometimes
develop for as long as 3 minutes but like to expose so that
development is complete in around 2 minutes (assuming a
Dektol or Bromophen type developer).
Get the best enlarging lenses you can afford. With this
exception expensive darkroom equipment is not necessary
(although its nice to have).
I don't know what else to tell you. There just isn't any
magic. Time and temperature should be accurate, agitation
consistent, and chemicals fresh. Keep things clean.
I've left out cameras. Film is relativly tollerant of
overexposure, not very tollerant of underexposure. Cameras
should have reasonably accurate shutters (much better in
modern cameras than in the past) and good lenses (not as
much better as you would think).
Keep records in the darkroom. Note how the prints look
when wet and look at them again the next day when they are
good and dry. Most papers "dry down" or change contrast and
density between wet and dry. This can be compensated for to
some extent but you must learn what the paper does.
This is turning into a book so I better quit now.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Jytzel" wrote in message
om...
Thank you Richard,

I agree you completel; I agree about Ilford paper, and I
never liked
them that much. I think Kuhn's work is fine but I'm really
impressed
by the quality. The images has very good tonality (rich,
smooth
mid-tones-to-highlights.) It seems that linear curve film-
yes it
could be a pulled Tmax in something like microdol. I think
that Pyro
produces that kind of curve with coventional films; it was
the closest
I got to those images and printed on VC paper- yet was
grainy. But I
can't really believe it's an old technology film in one of
the
conventional developers like D-76.... I don't know!

J.


Long thread snipped...

D-76 is close to being an optimum developer for a lot of
films. It is also pretty fool proof.
There are a lot of good films on the market although
some have been recently discontinued at lest in some sizes.
The slower the film the more likely they are to give you
smooth tonal rendition. There are several medium speed films
in 120 roll films, Agfa APX 100, Ilford FP-4+, or Kodak
Plus-X all do well. Agfa is the coarsest grain, Plus-X the
finest of the group, not a huge difference. To start try any
of the above and a developer like D-76 diluted 1:1 or Xtol.
I prefer Agfa papers for printing and Kodak second. I've
used Ilford paper in the past but don't like their current
RC papers. There are good print developers made by all of
the big three. Dektol is of course the old standby. For
somewhat more neutral tones try Ilford Bromophen. Agfa makes
the only Phenidone-Ascorbic acid print developer I know of;
Neutol Plus.
Process the film according to the instructions. Be
careful of agitation techniques, Kodak recommends 5 seconds
every 30 seconds, Ilford 10 seconds once a minute. They are
not quite the same so follow the agitation given with the
time/temperature chart you are using.
Even though B&W is not as critical of temperature as
color it is still important to control the temperature if
you want predictible and repeatable development. The
developer temperature should be within on F degree of the
expected temperature. You will note the charts are usualy in
2 F degree steps which tells you that amount of change makes
a significant difference. I use an electronic thermometer
which is calibrated to an accuracy of about 1/2 degree F.
Mine is a CheckTemp made by Hanna Instruments and cost
around $30 US.
For roll film I use old Nikor stainless steel tanks. I
also have a rare Nikor sheet film tank which I use for 4x5.
I also have used tray development and print drums for sheet
film. Trays are fine for small amounts but I am not the most
skillful film shuffler.
T-Max films are excellent but are more sensitive to
variations in development. To get a change in contrast of
one paper grade most films need a change of about 33% in
time, T-Max will change taht much in 20% to 25% change in
time. The film is also more sensitive to agitation and to
temperature. If you work carefully you will not have
problems with excessive contrast.
Kodak charts are for contrast suitable for contact
printing and diffusion enlarging onto Grade 2 paper. In a
condenser enlarger these negatives will print correctly on
Grade 1 paper. If you want to print on Grade 2 you have to
reduce the development time as indicated above and decrease
film speed to about 3/4 of the ISO speed. Ilford gives times
and speeds for a compromise contrast between diffusion and
condenser printing. Agfa seems to use different contrasts
for different charts so you have to look carefully. Agfa
also uses "gamma" a measure of contrast that is not often
used now for pictorial negatives so the numbers are not
directly comparable to those published by either Kodak
(contrast index) or Ilford (average gradient). In any case,
if you follow directions you should be able to figure out
what to do to adjust the negative contrast, or for that
matter, if they need adjustment.
Because paper is developed to "completion" that is, to
the highest density and contrast it is capable of,
development is less critical than for negatives. However
there IS a change in density with change in development
time. To a very limited degree variations in print
development can be used to compensate for small variations
in exposure. Once you reach full devlopment there is little
change in the contrast of papers despite the existence of
low contrast developers (they are just slower) and variable
contrast developers (good for maybe half a grade). I really
like variable contast paper because I can adjust to get the
best print from each negative. One can do this with graded
paper also but then you need to stock a lot of paper. While
any VC filter set will work with any VC paper the contrast
grades and differences and exposure compensation (so called
constant speed) will be right only for the set supplied by
the paper manufacturer. If you are using a color head each
manufacturer will supply you with a chart showing the
correct settings to obtain the contrast you want. Textured
papers will not give you as much conrast as glossy because
the light scattered from the surface washes out the deep
shadows.
I develop prints for around 90 seconds to 2 minutes,
depending on the paper. For fiber base paper I sometimes
develop for as long as 3 minutes but like to expose so that
development is complete in around 2 minutes (assuming a
Dektol or Bromophen type developer).
Get the best enlarging lenses you can afford. With this
exception expensive darkroom equipment is not necessary
(although its nice to have).
I don't know what else to tell you. There just isn't any
magic. Time and temperature should be accurate, agitation
consistent, and chemicals fresh. Keep things clean.
I've left out cameras. Film is relativly tollerant of
overexposure, not very tollerant of underexposure. Cameras
should have reasonably accurate shutters (much better in
modern cameras than in the past) and good lenses (not as
much better as you would think).
Keep records in the darkroom. Note how the prints look
when wet and look at them again the next day when they are
good and dry. Most papers "dry down" or change contrast and
density between wet and dry. This can be compensated for to
some extent but you must learn what the paper does.
This is turning into a book so I better quit now.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA