 |
| Jessica. Foma paper, lith |
The Foma paper in lith results in a very warm print naturally, by the way. And yes, the grain really is that big - even on these 9.5"x12" prints. That's partly due to exposing HP5 at (or around) 3200asa, but the lith process helps to accentuate that as well, in addition to adding even more to the softness of print. It suits the subject well, I think.
And just for completeness, the print you might have seen earlier, kind of half-mounted:
I've enjoyed making these three prints enormously. I seem to get more out of darkroom work than camera work at the minute - sometimes I need a kick to get out and actually take some snaps but I'm always itching to get in to the darkroom and print something.
I think a black frame works well here. I really like the lith prints. Is the lith process the origin of the sepia tone you get in digital cameras and software? Or is that something else? I rather like a touch of cyan in my black and white photos but it can easily look like a 'fun filter' photo if not done subtly and well.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone ever give prints or send digital copies of photos to the models?
Thanks Marcus - appreciated. Lith is different to toning. Toning is done after the print is made - and sepia is one of the most common ways to tone. Other are selenium, copper, blue or even gold. Each one can be varied in strength and some can be combined - sepia and selenium is a well known combination, for example.
DeleteLith is the term given to a particular mix of chemicals use to develop the print after it's exposed under the enlarger. Usually it's a weak solution (e.g., 30ml per 1000ml water) and used at a higher temperature to normal developer. Not all darkroom papers respond to lith - many of the old, truely lithable papers have ceased production. But there are one or two modern papers which do respond well - Foma, from the Czech Republic is one, and Slavich, from Russia another. Both are very different in the way they respond to lith. The Foma, which I've used here, gives a very warm look. I haven't toned any of the prints here - this is simply the way it comes out after developing - and fixing, washing of course :)
Lith tends to enhance the grain structure and gives a somewhat soft look to everything. Development starts slowly (it can take several minutes for an image to start to appear) and then takes on what is termed 'infectious development' - in other words, development begins to accelerate quicker and quicker. You have to watch it carefully under the safelight and pull the print ('snatch') from the developer before it runs away with you. I really enjoy working with lith - it's totally different to 'normal' darkroom work and for me, it's the perfect antidote to all this digital obsession with sharpness.
Regarding giving prints/scans to the models - I guess that happens but I don't really know. I've posted these on the club's FB page and Jessica can see them. I'd be more than happy to give her prints if she wants them, but I didn't ask her directly.
DeleteThank you for the explanations of lith and toning. I didn't do anything like that when I was learning in the darkroom.
DeleteFoma is an interesting company. The film is really cheap, but I like the look of it. Ralph Gibson complained about how grainless TRi-X was becoming. Maybe he should buy some Foma 400. But maybe he's happy with his black and white Leica digital camera now.
Regarding sharpness, I don't understand the fanaticism about getting the crispiest results possible. I leave my digital cameras on their default setting and get plenty of detail. More detail (or exaggerated detail?) wouldn't improve my photos in any way. But the sharpness/contrast/saturation maniacs don't seem to be interested in photos anyway . . . .
I think that's very much true, Marcus. I have been sitting at my local photo club listening to some guys discussing a photo, but it will typically only take a few seconds before they are well into a discussion that has nothing to do with the photo itself. It's all ending up with jibberish about pixels and sharpness and how to calibrate monitors and whatever you can and can not think of. And yes, it's a bit sad, I think.
DeleteI really love this series of prints, Michael! They look great on the black background.
I have a little game I play in my head when a judge comes along to our Club nights...'How long before the word "sharp" is used?". I know this won't come a massive shock to you guys but it isn't usually more than a few minutes!
DeleteHa. How do these guys feel about looking at old photos from Bresson et al? It must drive them out of their minds.
DeleteThe word "Sharpness" has totally lost it's old meaning to me since digital came around. As I have said before and will probably say again, people seem to be totally crazy about "sharpness" these days, and sometimes you would think that's all that matters in a photo. Well... it's not, believe me! I think I just wrote a few words about it somewhere in this post: https://filmphotographymadesimple.blogspot.com/2019/04/i-was-just-asked.html
ReplyDeleteI'm just happy if the subject is in focus. :)
DeleteAnd interesting words they are, Roy - as always. And yeh the sharpness thing is a related to the pixel devices, I think. And all those back-lit screen-displayed images doesn't help either. People forget how a print should look - and surprise surprise it doesn't look like a screen image.
Delete