[This little column was one of my talked-about when it was first published on The Luminous-Landscape in 2002. Reprinted here for preservation purposes, apropos of our discussion of classic B&W movies the other day.
I no longer have the file of the original illustration, and I don't know where the print is. —Mike the Ed.]
-
Years ago I worked as the Lab Manager at the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C. The Corcoran School has a fancier name now, but it’s still the same good old place, tucked into the basements and attics and other out-of-the-way cubbies and warrens of the Corcoran Gallery of Art building a stone’s throw from the White House [2018 note: The Corcoran School of the Arts and Design is now part of George Washington University]. Frank Lloyd Wright thought the Beaux-Arts Corcoran Gallery building was the prettiest building in all of Washington.
Anyway, one curious phenomenon I noticed while administering the school’s darkroom was that every now and then, breathless museum-goers would find their way down to the school with the same question.
"I've just been looking at the show upstairs, and I need to know‚ what exactly is a 'silver print'?"
They were incredulous when I informed them that a silver print was just an ordinary black-and-white photograph made on ordinary photo paper. Disappointed, too. I think they thought they had stumbled on a Significant Secret, one they could emulate to make their own photography special. Really, what they’d been looking at were prints done right, made by master printers who knew what they were doing.
"I can hardly believe that," one crestfallen woman told me. "Those prints upstairs just glow. My prints don’t glow."
Yeah. The Glow. I know what she meant. That rich, soft, pearly look that some master prints have. As if a soft light were coming from deep within the paper.
Of course, what those earnest would-be acolytes assumed was that if the method wasn't magical, then the artists' skills had to be arcane and non-duplicable. They were sort of right about that; skill counts for a lot.
But it's also just a look. I was a custom exhibition black-and-white printer for a number of years, and just like a jack-of-all-trades journalist has to learn to write in different styles, a custom printer has to learn to print in different styles. Different clients have different tastes, and there are varying ideas out there of what a "good print" looks like.
You should be able to get "The Glow" without too much trouble too if you really want to. Start with a good recipe, and then just apply a little more attentiveness than usual. Here’s one recipe. Not the only one, but this should work for you. Anyone can do it‚ try it, you’ll see.
A Recipe for 'The Glow'
• Use an older lens. An old, fast "long normal" lens‚ a 58mm ƒ/1.4 or ƒ/1.2‚ works wonderfully. Various makers made 'em and you can get 'em on eBay for a song. One nice new one is the Ricoh 55mm ƒ/1.2 that costs very little money [NLA]. A Noct or a Summarit will serve well enough if you only have Leica lenses. Don't use most current 50mm ƒ/1.4s, which are more "harsh-sharp." Stay away from Nikon lenses, too. If you want a cheap sample that will work wonders, pick up an old Pentax Spotmatic and an Pentax M42 screwmount (not Leica screwmount) 50mm ƒ/1.4 Takumar. And if you think that different lenses don’t have different tonal ranges, shoot that lens side-by-side with a 50mm ƒ/1.8 AF-Nikkor. That'll open your eyes!
• Use a K2 filter—Wrattan #8, medium yellow, whatever you want to call it. This will require another stop or so of exposure. You meter will probably tell you you only need an extra 2/3rds stop, but use a whole one.
• Shoot in good light away from the sun, and don't provoke flare. Shade the lens. Stay away from very high contrast situations.
• Don’t use a thin-emulsion film; stick with old-fashioned conventional emulsions. There are a couple of these left; one is Kodak Plus-X. There are some Efke and Foma films out there too that are antiquated emulsions and worth playing with if you’re one of those rare individuals with plenty of time on their hands.
• Expose enough. Say, Plus-X at E.I. 64 (that film's real speed), and maybe a bracket up for safety.
• Use a conventional, traditional developer. Again, there are several, but Kodak D-76 is one. D-23 is a non-commercial developer that’s easy to scratch-mix. If you really want a silvery look, try one of the pyro developer formulae. You'll lose film speed, but the full shadows and long gradation can be worth it.
• Don't develop too much. Say, 10% or 20% less than the manufacturer recommends for outdoor scenes, no more than the manufacturer recommends for flat indoor scenes. Giving generous exposure and not developing too much is called "pulling," and it was common in the days before reliable light meters…and before the pernicious disease of "pushing" became an epidemic spread by hobby magazines and photojournalists. I’ll give you a hint that will set you well on the way to being a better printer: never push.
• Use a diffusion enlarger. Most enlargers are somewhere on the spectrum between purely collimated and purely diffuse light, with a point-source head at one extreme and an actinic (cold-light) head at the other. A Durst "condenser" enlarger is pretty diffuse, because the light source is a large frosted light bulb. A dichroic-style head like a colorhead is quite diffuse. Most photographers have no idea of the difference their light source makes in the way their film looks. The selfsame Tri-X negative printed on a Leitz Focomat IIc and a Saunders 4550 VC head makes the film look like it has different characteristics. Try it. You'll see. (Yup, I have. Sometimes, when I'm weary, I feel like I've tried everything there is to try in the darkroom.)
• Use a rich fiber-base paper. Ilford's old Galerie (not the current paper of that name) was wonderful for "The Glow." Before that, Kodak Medalist yielded lovely results. There are many great photo papers available, but many more great ones are gone now.
• Don't print with too much contrast. Most photographers print way too light and use too much contrast. Cartier-Bresson was always egging his printer to use less contrast‚ he sent the first batch of master repro prints for The Decisive Moment back to the lab to be printed with lower contrast. With many negatives, photographers unknowingly push past the natural scale of the negative and then think that lowering the printing contrast will make the print look "flat." Actually, if the negative has sufficient information, lowering the printing contrast brings out more gradation and makes the print look richer, until you get past the threshold where a complete range of tones is present‚ which most photographers seldom do. The point is not more contrast. The point is not less contrast. The point is the right contrast.
Voilà. The Glow. Try it, you might like it.
Mike
© Michael C. Johnston 2002, 2018
Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
No featured comments yet—please check back soon!
Ah, but what recipe with digital? I imagine SilverEfex would be a part. The lenses for digital are all very sharp, but there are also issues with using old lenses on new bodies (though it can be a lot of fun!) And assuming a regular digital print (and not an interneg), what paper (and printer. And ink. Argh.)
Posted by: SF Murph | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 07:14 PM
'Use an older lens. An old, fast "long normal" lens‚ a 58mm ƒ/1.4 or ƒ/1.2‚ works wonderfully.'
I've been having a lot of fun with a Canon FL 58/1.2. As "A standard lens for 35mm SLR cameras with the largest aperture in the world when marketed (2/62)." , it has lots of the aberrations that contribute to Glow.
I am neither shooting film nor printing in monochrome, but it sure does Glow, to the extent that I often prefer f2.0 to wide open.
'Various makers made 'em and you can get 'em on eBay for a song.'
I don't know if $178 is " . . . a song.' Perhaps so, compared to original price inflated. I looked at samples and concluded that it's as bad (good) as the currently hot Rokkor that's going for more $$.
Posted by: Moose | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 07:30 PM
So.....can you coax "The Glow" out of your XTi files processed with Silver Efex Pro and printed on the Epson 800? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Steve Rosenblum | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 08:23 PM
Okay. I am an old Pentax fanboy starting in 1980 with the K-1000 and SMC 50mm f2.0 lens. I still have it (along with a variety of other Pentax and Minolta film cameras) and it still works. I have recently been seeing some of Ned Bunnell's work with old Takumar's on his digital K-series cameras and have thought of getting a Spotmatic and screw mount lenses. Would you recommend the Takumar, SMC Takumar, or the Super Takumar? I have decided on the Spotmatic F and just need to pick a lens and go! Thank you for the re-post of the article. I might just have to print this one for my notebook!
Posted by: Aubrey Silvertooth | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 08:40 PM
Mike, Thank you for that post. It not only reminds us that the editor is a seasoned and knowledgeable author, but a preeminently skilled photographer as well. The techniques may be of older procedures, but transferable to the digital realm, by not the least, their layered nature of changeable aspects.
Posted by: Bob Gary | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 10:04 PM
Indeed, that Nikkor normal is gawdawful. Harsh bokeh too.
My fave silver paper was Agfa Record Rapid. Such deep, warm blacks, wonderful. The plastic paper Portriga Speed was almost as good, amazingly. (I think that was the name.)
Posted by: Eolake | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 10:07 PM
Good one, Mike. Thanks.
Posted by: Bill Wheeler | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 10:13 PM
"Don’t use a thin-emulsion film; stick with old-fashioned conventional emulsions"
Sigh...
The plate making guys I dealt with in the late 70s did their best work from repros of dark low contrast RC glossy prints that looked absolutely awful. If you dig around in newspaper morgues, the prints all are kind of muddy.
On the other hand Ralph Gibson...
Posted by: hugh crawford | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 11:13 PM
Is there an analog to digital converter for this recipe?
Posted by: Merle | Monday, 07 May 2018 at 11:35 PM
A photo with lots of glow-

[Sparkles! --Mike]
Posted by: herman krieger | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 12:14 AM
Just out of interest Mike; Is this anything to do with the "Leica Glow" and will Zeiss do?
I only ask because Haaselblad used Zeiss lenses in the "old days", and Leica used to make nice lenses.
Posted by: Stephen J | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 02:33 AM
Great article. I enjoyed experimenting in different, alternative printing techniques years ago. Too old and lazy right now to bother.
Could you imagine the gallery goers losing their minds today if there were orotone (gold tone) or platinum prints on display.
To tell you the truth..there was a certain kind of "glow" from the platinum prints. But a real PITA to wotk with.
Posted by: George | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 08:17 AM
A little glow from ‘72 or ‘73 taken in the Boston Common. M4, 50mm Cron, Tri-X and Ilford Galerie:
https://flic.kr/p/fMY6fk
Posted by: Ned Bunnell | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 09:21 AM
Mike
Your "glow" article synches with me. I use a Leica 50mm Summilux-M lens for almost all my B&W shooting now.
In the darkroom, I'm torn between a Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N or a Leitz Focotar-2. Having used the latter, if precision or sharpness is not of great concern, the Focotar wins.
Dan K.
Singapore
Posted by: Dan Khong | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 09:26 AM
May have to get that Takumar out of storage. Not sure where I'll find any fresh Plus-X however ...
Posted by: David Brown | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 09:52 AM
For the first time in recent memory this is enough to make me consider trying to resurrect my darkroom. At least the wastebasket would still of necessity be functional. Somewhat related, I'm curious if there is a general consensus about the Fuji monochrome, Acros and filters simulation modes?
Posted by: Fred Fowler | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 10:26 AM
This makes me nostalgic for my darkroom... but not nostalgic enough to start it up again! This post is a good reminder of how incredibly hard it was to get to 'mastery' in black and white printing.
I would love to see you update this post for digital, from the shooting, processing and printing sides. You had some posts last year on black and white digital, but I think there's room for more.
And finally, if you're going to be re-publishing things you wrote on LuLu, I still think your piece on "contrast" from 2012 is clearer and more relevant than most of what I've read since. How about re-doing that one? https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/
Posted by: Rob de Loe | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 10:44 AM
Great article, Mike- I will print the article -
I only contact print these days, but the old papers are available if you know where to look.
Posted by: Herb Cunningham | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 10:47 AM
Your recent mention of cinematography and now older lenses reminded me of an article I read recently on the way cinematography has transformed some of the big budget cable series. They mention that the series Atlanta is "shooting in Super 16 using super-old garbage hand lenses." Some of the other big shows from the last few years have a beautiful look that must come from this new freedom to innovate, advancement in technology, and BIG money. I think I read somewhere that a Game of Thrones episode can cost 8-10 million.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/mar/01/tv-that-doesnt-look-like-tv-how-cinematography-relit-the-small-screen
Posted by: Jim A | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 10:50 AM
The good old days when photography was all silver based! The Hunt bros. are still cursing digital photography from their graves!
Posted by: Howard | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 11:13 AM
Lenses certainly make a difference.
The old (pre-Pentax) Takumars, for example, have plenty of resolution on digital, but considerably less contract than modern lenses.
It's a look I like.
Posted by: Nigel | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 11:28 AM
James Ravilious, whose documentation of life in rural Devon is one of the great accomplishments of 20th century photography, was master of the "glow," although that was by no means his primary purpose.
Photographing contrasty scenes, often backlighted, an effect that he preferred, he early on learned to rate his HP-5 at 200 and reduce development. He also turned to older, softer, even uncoated, lenses for his Leica to give his prints the sharp, yet soft look he sought.
Posted by: Dave Jenkins | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 01:05 PM
A post very much after my own heart, one of the kind that keeps me trawling photo blogs for daily. Instructive and a joy to read.
A lover of good tone aspiring to competence in printing and a convert to digital, I believe that many of your readers besides myself would be interested to know your take on the digital print in this regard. Can it 'glow' too? And how does it otherwise compare in other tangible and intangible aspects of photographic printing?
PS In my film days I had both a 50mm f/1.4 Pentax Super-Takumar and a 50mm f/2 Leica Summicron, and I found the Takumar superior in every way. It was a very noble lens, very sharp yet mellow, and mechanically smooth as butter.
Posted by: Dragan Novakovic | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 02:30 PM
Thanks for the hints, much appreciated.
Unlike most nowadays, I still enjoy B&W film particularly for any photos of people and portraits. Yeah, the best description is indeed: "the glow".
Posted by: Noons | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 05:47 PM
My memory may be failing me, but I vaguely recall you wrote an article back in the 37th Frame days (maybe earlier, maybe later, maybe I'm crazy) about how to get 'The Look'. All I really remember were two details. 1: (and most important) was to use a tripod. 2: was to use Tri-X film. I am certain you wrote an article/column somewhere with this advice.
Knowing Mike of the 21st century, I'd guess that the material choice of Tri X was only the example you gave for your own workflow, but I distinctly recall the exhortation to use a tripod as the key.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick Perez | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 07:24 PM
Clearly I've been doing it wrong all my life! Never rated a B&W film below the nominal, nearly always pushed the fastest B&W film, used Agfa #6 paper where necessary, always preferred condenser enlargers (yeah, not actual point-source ones).
These were necessary to get pictures at all in many of the conditions I shot in. Sacrificing speed is fine for outdoors in the sun and stationary subjects, no doubt, but I rarely shoot those.
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Tuesday, 08 May 2018 at 10:42 PM
Let’s admit it, all that darkroom stuff was a “faff”. Just compare the work involved in keeping a pony and trap, with running a Mazda MX-5.
It is just a question of time, maybe, but two remaining “thrills”, that the digital age has to conquer ....
1) Just hold a Cibachrome (now, there’s a good strapline for someone)
2) Just gasp at projected medium format (my currrent passion)
That is, unless TOP or it’s readers can convince otherwise.
Posted by: XK50 | Wednesday, 09 May 2018 at 01:47 AM
Excellent advice and given the number of young people rediscovering film it is also timely.
If I may I would also recommend that to achieve the "glow' you need to mind not just your film/developer choice but also how you choose to agitate your film during the development step.
I was taught that the best results for B&W roll film development came by using stainless tanks. First tapping them on the sink to break loose any air bells on the film followed by 30 seconds of agitation and then five seconds of agitation at the top of each minute.
My understanding is that by leaving the film to stand in still developer for 55 seconds at a time it gave the developer next to the highlights an opportunity to partially expend itself while also giving the developer next to the shadows time to work more aggressively.
I don't know if this is an old wives tale like the idea that hypo is heavier and thus drains out the bottom of a washer. It is however how I have always processed roll film and I like the full detail most of my negatives show.
Posted by: mike plews | Wednesday, 09 May 2018 at 02:10 PM
I highly recommend the RPX emulsions from Rollei. RPX 100 is my favourite so far. I haven’t played much with the 400, and I messed up a roll of 25, but I have seen good stuff from both. The 100 impresses me as silver rich and “old school” ... whatever that means.I’ve had lovely results in (forgive me, Mike,) in Rodinal and next I will try (forgive me again) Pyrocat HD. Maybe I’ll even try D76 or a clone.
The only drawback is the price of the Rollei-branded emulsions; they are about 50% more than other b&w films. I don’t know why this is.
The best prints I ever made were developed in Weston’s Amidol.
Posted by: Earl Dunbar | Wednesday, 09 May 2018 at 08:00 PM
Hugh's right: flattish prints were recommended for reproduction because copying always - pretty much always - introduced unwanted contrast; it was an unavoidable part of the copying process whether in the studio or in a process house. But muddy? That's a bit OTT.
Regarding HC-B and his foibles re. prints: I think the old guy played mind games with those around him. Holding a sheet of contacts upside down in order to evaluate the graphics smacks, to me, of having been caught out looking at something the wrong way up because you forgot your glasses that day.
He had the weight, the popular gravitas to get away with that kind of crap.
:-)
Posted by: Rob Campbell | Friday, 11 May 2018 at 07:27 AM
There's rating film speeds (black-white) at all manner of fancy speeds, (remember ASA, anyone?) but that means precious little in the grander scheme of things if you don't understand how to use your exposure meter for the subject that confronts you.
Unless you are reading the correct part of the subject, then what on Earth do you imagine your speeds really mean?
Insofar as film/processing goes, I would suggest forgetting everything except D76/ID11 used 1+1. When you know that chemistry well, process consistently, most of your problems vanish.
Like many things, the more often you do if, the better you might get.
Posted by: Rob Campbell | Saturday, 12 May 2018 at 07:59 AM