Mathematical Trees Part 1: Where mistakes and serendipity lead...

The Theme

The theme of this post is how you can learn from your mistakes and not in the usual sense that you won't repeat them. Rather that there may be some creative serendipity if you contemplate the result rather than condemn it. It is also instructive in how one image may contain multiple versions that may be distinct in terms of the emotion conveyed. 

Some of this was born out of some prints I made from a Marloes Sands photo where I played with contrast to get a different feel from the same image. 

How it all started...

In my previous post about getting back into the darkroom I printed one of the first images I took this year. I it call Mathematical Trees. I printed this on my 6x6 enlarger even though it is a 6x9 negative from my Fuji GSW690iii camera. I found a workable square crop (below) but it didn't do the image justice The copse on the right gets cut off and it is contained completely on the negative and was a vital part of the composition. 

The square version I printed entirely with a #5 (hard) filter as it gave a pleasing minimal image that works well with the high contrast scene. I also printed a more balanced version with some soft filtration to bring up the gray in the skies. I printed these on Ilford MGFB Classic as I wanted a pure white base  to represent the snow on the ground. 

Mathematical Trees square crop
(Hard filter only 11x11" on 12x12" paper)

The next day I decided to dust off  "The Beast" my ancient Durst 4x5 enlarger.  I setup up the 105mm lens and the condensers for the 6x9 negative. I made a first couple of prints one of which was quite good. The first one my test strip indicated good blacks at 22 seconds on the #5 filter. However it brought some image tone to the sky and snow. So I went down half a stop to 16 seconds in the second. (MGFB Classic Matte paper, 15"x9" image on 16"x12" paper)

 

#5 22 seconds

#5 16 seconds

Looking closer at the two prints one thing is apparent. The second image benefits from individuation of the trees in the copse on the right. This makes its identity clear and keeps it from being a black mass. I also noted that it might be better to crop a little more tightly an reduce the empty space on the left and right of the image. The day was done though and so any changes would have to wait for the next day. 

The Next Day...

Today was roller coaster and frankly exhausting. The Beast sits on the top floor of the house and is two flights of stairs to my main darkroom with the sink and developing chemicals. Think of the wet side and dry side of a darkroom being two flights of stairs apart. I convey the exposed paper in a black plastic bag. You can see how The Beast does not get much use because of this arrangement. 

I wanted to duplicate the same exposure as the day before but with a tighter crop. It should be straightforward. Raise the enlarger head refocus and check the light level. About five hours later I got my results! ( I was also attempting another print at the same time however.)

For reasons I do not understand the prints were suddenly much darker for what should have been the same exposure. (I did open a fresh box of paper but the difference was at least a stop. I have never experienced this much variation in Ilford paper.) I got the following two exposures one of which should have been like the second one above. 

#5 16 seconds

#5 11 seconds

You can see why I am flummoxed. Radically darker images for what should be similar exposure times. But there is something here to be learned. David Kachel promotes the idea of going too far in different exposure directions to see what turns up. Indeed there is something here I hadn't seen in previous prints. A much darker sky would change the image completely; something to file away in my mind for later. (As Bob Ross would say 'happy accidents'.)

Now rather than regroup I plow on and decide to go with a lower exposure. I mean how complicated is this I am only using one filter! Well, I got these two images. Massively underexposed for what I am after. 

#5 8 seconds

#5 6 seconds

Well now I am really confused. But again these images have their own power. They give a sense of isolation and loneliness. The trees are textured with what at first seem like bark but is actually grain (Ilford HP5+ pushed to 800). I am reminded of a photographer whose name escapes me that I saw at the Cleveland Clinic many years ago when I attended my father for his open heart surgery. They have a well funded and active art program that is exhibited on the walls of the facilities. There were these giant prints probably 60" across of landscapes but they were printed so faintly you could barely make them out at first. Uniquely haunting and almost abstract. I now have some more thinking to do about how to use this revelation. 

Well I have been winging it a bit to this point. As they say 'when the map and terrain don't match, follow the terrain'. So back to test strips. I set to f32 and run a test strip for the tree with the #5 filter.

Test strip #5 filter f32 8" to 64" in half stop intervals.

I am looking for the point where I get dense black but no further. Too much and the contrast amongst the branches is lost. I see 22 seconds is close and 32 seconds a bit too much so I opt for the quarter stop difference. The #5 filter has such a steep contrast gradient quarter stop increments become quite useful.

Next I take another test strip with the #5 filter on the copse on the right. As I said before the individuation of the trees is important to the image and I want to consider if the exposure there should be different. 

Test strip #5 filter f32 11" to 64" in half stop intervals.

I started this strip at 11seconds instead of 8 seconds as I didn't have much room to make the intervals on this short piece of the image. 

Here I discern that 22 seconds gets the best individuation with decent blacks. So I err on underexposure for these delicate lines. This makes my final print decision to be #5 for 27 seconds and dodge the copses (left and right) 5 seconds each. Its pretty simple to just poke a finger over the dodged areas. 

Final Print (15x9" on 16x12" Ilford MGFB Classic)

This really nails it for me. The copse looks like a copse. The image retains that stark black/white lithograph look. Even better than the first take on 6x9 images at the beginning of this post.

3200dpi scan of copse area of final print

Departures and Happy Accidents

Going Darker

The unintentional darker images led me to see I could get an entirely different image if I burn the sky. The original dark images have the snow gray which is of course wrong but the sky could be more foreboding. Towards that end I made sky test strips with the soft #00 filter. 

Sky Test strip f16 #00 filter 8" to 64" in half stop intervals.

I needed to increase the aperture to f16 from f32 to get the sky to register useful gray values. It seems my burn needs to be in the upper end of the range. This will be the subject of my next darkroom post. 

Going Lighter

The underexposed images seem to me to be about isolation and remoteness. The scene seems to float unanchored in the white background. It  also evokes a kind of fog or mist. My first impression is to make a square print (perhaps 12"x12") with a smaller rectangular image centered. This will be the subject of another darkroom session.