A few hours more of darkroom experience and a few more insights later resulted in this batch:
They are all printed on Kentmere Fineprint VC and using a Durst M670 enlarger with split grade processing, details below each picture. The leftmost was shot on old Fortepan 400 120-film in a Mamiya 7. The others are on Fomapan 100 135-film.
First out is Fortepan 400:
Fortepan 400 is very grainy and developed in HC-110 the negatives have a dark hue all over. They are hard to scan and paper developing was no easier. Perhaps this is an effect of bad storage all these years? I keep mine in the freezer but no one knows if that has been the case before. I’d stay away from more Fortepan in the future. This is a crop from a 6×7 negative as I only have a 6×6 mask. Considerable retouching was necessary to remove small white stains in the highlights of the picture. Another effect of bad storage?
Moving on to this weekend’s promenades here is a tree with snow on it:
Somehow I managed to put a glove on the edge of the lens on this one. The perils of viewfinder cameras… That disaster apart the highlights are realistic and there is also considerable detail in the shadows. As this negative is only 24×36 mm I was surprised to find that much detail in the print. Compared to scanned negatives the quality is better overall. In fact the tree negative is flipped, but I like it better this way. (Fomapan 100 135-film. Print exposure 8s Y170, 8s M170, f/8).
This snowy picture I like quite a lot, with dark shadows, bright highlights and details in the birch trunk and twigs:(Fomapan 100 135-film. Print exposure 8s Y170, 8s M170, f/8).
On a related note this is what happens if you forget to use the colours in the dichroic head/mixer box of the enlarger:
The VC paper is much more sensitive to white light than to coloured light. The same exposure of 8s + 8s at f/8 was used above as in the following, correct, one:
Here I remembered to activate the dichroic light and exposed 8s with Y170 and then 8s with M170, both at f/8. The picture was taken with a tripod in the living room. The resolution of 135-film is better than I imagined. (The notch along the right edge is a hint to the knowing about the camera used.)
The prints were all scanned on a Canoscan 9000f at 800 dpi.
Hmmmm: Given a base exposure with Y170 for the just emerging highlights it turns out that about the same number of seconds with M170 give reasonable contrasty results. It may be a quick standard way of getting prints? Less contrast would require fewer seconds of M170 of course. Must remember to try that out!