1982 Self Portrait - B&W

[terrib]

I did this self portrait for my first photography class in college in 1982. I believe this would have been natural light as I had no equipment. This is scanned from a print that I developed myself for the class. I actually rather like the image so I may look through the negatives and see if I can get a better print of it.

I do have a question for you who are familiar with old B&W prints. In looking through all my prints, they all are very dark. Is it common for old B&W prints to darken over time or was I just that bad at judging exposure? The negatives have been in plastic sleeves in the dark all these years. Are they likely to be as I shot them?

[Digital]

Terri, it appears that the light on the Left (camera position) came from a window or some other soft light source. The RT (again, camera position) of your face is in shadow. Is this correct?
Back in film days, sleeves for negatives were labeled archival. Some others may disagree; however your negative should not have darkened. Others, with more expertise may shed more light (pardon the pun) on your question.
btw: lovely self portrait.

Bruce

[William W]

Nice portrait.

***

I did this self portrait for my first photography class in college in 1982. I believe this would have been natural light as I had no equipment. This is scanned from a print that I developed myself for the class. I actually rather like the image so I may look through the negatives and see if I can get a better print of it.

I am a tad confused as to what you mean, precisely, but – it is probably easier and also better to SCAN the Negative (or better still have it scanned professionally) than to make a new print from the Negative.

***

I do have a question for you who are familiar with old B&W prints. In looking through all my prints, they all are very dark. Is it common for old B&W prints to darken over time or was I just that bad at judging exposure?

I would need to see the negs (and the prints), but mainly the negs.

One reason that prints might darken, is if they were not Stopped and Fixed correctly.

If the darkening is universal and even across the range of grey tones in the print, then more likely it is an exposure issue.

There are TWO exposures to consider:
> if the neg show a good dynamic range and the print is muddy (and the sample scanned print appears to be muddy) then it is likely the exposure of the print in the darkroom and not the exposure of the neg in the camera that is the issue.

> if the neg shows poor dynamic range, then it could be the exposure in the camera, but (usually) only if the neg is thin.

On the other hand – if the neg shows a reasonable dynamic range but is thin (hence a dark print), then it is likely: the developer was old/spent; the developing time was too short; the developer temperature was too low; the developer mix was too diluted.

There are lots of variables – I’d really need to see the neg.

***

In any case – IF the image you posted as it appears on your screen almost the same as it does in the print and if your screen is reasonably calibrated – then it would be a reasonable guess that the PRINTING process was flawed. The paper is too soft and the Printing Exposure Time was slightly too short - but that is only an educated and experienced guess based upon the image on screen being very similar to the print that you hold.

So if you can find the neg and the neg is reasonably clean, then you should have a good chance of attaining a good data file from scanning the neg.. I do quite a lot of restoration work and it is ten million percent easier to work with the negatives than with prints; so if you like the image then finding the neg. would be your time well spent.

***

The negatives have been in plastic sleeves in the dark all these years. Are they likely to be as I shot them?

Maybe _ maybe not?

Two important questions are regarding negative deterioration –

1. were the negatives stopped and fixed and washed correctly?
2. was there any moisture and or heat in the “dark place”

To get “Very Good to Excellent” results – as an indicative - you are looking for the negative to have at LEAST this Dynamic Range and Maximum DENSITY - as shown here, on the LIGHTED side of the face (i.e. the Left Hand Side) – but to have that range displayed all across all of the negative:



WW


Postscript:

Hi Bruce -

BTW I do not concur that the light was a “soft lighting source” – it may well have been window light, but it was not soft.

There are distinct hard shadows shown in the image of the scanned print - BUT - the print is muddy and is lacking contrast and also dynamic range.

And that's two good reasons to guess that the print and/or the printing process was flawed - and, hopefully there will not be so much of a problem with the negative.

[Mike Buckley]

If you're looking at prints with the same mindset that you now look at images displayed on a monitor, they might seem seem too dark even though they are just fine. That's because prints are reflecting the light whereas your monitor is emitting the light. On the other hand, your prints might indeed be too dark.

There are no quantified measurements of soft and hard light. The light could have been either softer or harder than displayed in this image. It really doesn't matter how we label the quality of the light; we either like it as is, want it softer or want it harder.

[terrib]

Well, thank you William for that very detailed explanation. I would say a lot of the prints do look muddy. Given that I was just learning about development in the class, it is very likely that the printing process was flawed. I will dig out the negatives and take a look. But given that I was also the one who processed the negatives, chances are not great. Oh well, it was more nostalgic than anything else.

[rpcrowe]

+1 to WilliamW

The negative was/is underexposed or thin. I suspect that when you printed this shot that you, because you were working with an underexposed negative pulled the print from the developer and did not let it develop for its full amount of time.

This usually resulted in a dark and muddy negative.

One of the major faults of new photographers was to try to control density by adjusting the time that the print was in the developer. This did not work and resulted in muddy prints...

[terrib]

I didn't have a chance today to find the negatives but wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied. I've forgotten everything I knew about darkroom development (or thought I knew) but now I can learn all about negative scanning! Another thread... after some research on my own.

[Mike Buckley]

I strongly recommend ScanCafe.com for scanning services. They regularly run sales. I used them to scan all of my color slides.

[William W]

. . . I've forgotten everything I knew about darkroom development (or thought I knew) . . .

I don't think so. It would only be a momentary lapse of memory, if you got back into the saddle you'd realize how much you remembered, I think.

WW

[bnnrcn]

Very nice image

[Cantab]

I didn't have a chance today to find the negatives but wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied. I've forgotten everything I knew about darkroom development (or thought I knew) but now I can learn all about negative scanning! Another thread... after some research on my own.

Terri, I had three 1972 B&W negatives scanned professionally at a high end operation in town a couple of years ago. They produced positive digital images for me. If you have only a few negatives you want to be scanned, I'd suggest looking for someone who does professional scanning with high end equipment. It was well worth the cost for me.