Low Contrast Negatives... is it my lens?

<p>Hi. I just developed my first (successful) 4x5 black and white negatives. Comparing them to the medium format negatives(shot with a Mamiya M645) that I process using essentially the same technique, the 4x5's seem lacking in contrast. Over most of the negative, there is no area that is completely transparent, and there doesn't seem to be a great range of tones.</p>

<p>The lens I used is a Graflex Optar 203mm f/7.5. The film is Ilford FP4+ 125, exposed at ISO 50. I used my cannon DSLR for metering.</p>

<p>My thought is that I have too high of hopes for this lens. But it's also possible I'm just doing something wrong. Or perhaps I should wait until I print from the negatives to judge the contrast and tonal range?</p>

<p>Thanks for your help.</p>

<p>The Kodak 203mm F7.7 I have here is coated and shoots a decent negative. Try a lens hood or your processing; check for light leaks too</p>

<p>The pictures from the graphics have a different look. You might try a thicker negative if you want more contrast.</p>

<p>Are you certain you developed for sheet film times rather than roll film? Both development times and agitation technique are crucial to each formats and can differ. If you used the same times and agitation that you are used to for roll film, it might well result in low contrast negs, depending on the type of emulsion.</p>

<p>I used HC110, Dilution H, for 12 minutes. That time is double the time printed on the box of film for dilution B. I used a daylight sheet film tank that I assembled. I agitate for the first minute, then ten seconds of each subsequent minute.</p>

<p>How would you characterize the images that I should expect to get from this lens? How does this differ from other, more modern (more expensive) lenses?</p>

<p>How do you feel about metering with a DSLR? Also, what do you mean by a thinker emulsion?</p>

<p>Published developing times are starting points. They should get you a usable image. Without seeing the negative or a unaltered scan of it it will be hard to say where the weakness is or even it there is any other than you are not satisfied. I have several negatives that look much better when scanned. Scanned or printed at paper black exposure for the paper/film/developer combo results in a very flat image then increase your developing time 15%, 13 minutes 48 seconds for the standard time of 12 minutes + 15%.<br>

To achieve paper black, develop and fix an unexposed sheet of the film being used, do a step exposure series on a piece of paper at f8 to f16 with the processed clear piece of film in the enlarger and develop normally, Use the time that just produces the maximum black of the paper for all negatives from this film printed on this paper. Use a different film, establish a new paper black print time.</p>

<p>Thicker negative=developed longer, resulting in more density.</p>

<p>You could take 3 or 4 203 Optars, expose the same scene, on the same film batch,the same camera, at the same time and f stop, in secession without the light changing, and get 3 or 4 tonally different images assuming all were clean and their shutters operating in tolerance.</p>

<p>1. With the lens off the camera lock the shutter open at B or open it on T. Open the aperture and look thru the lens at a bright light source. Is it clear or hazy? If hazy unscrew the front and rear lens from the shutter and clean the inner surfaces of the lens. Hold shutter and turn one lens element counterclockwise. Expect the elements to be stuck unless removed within the last few years.<br>

2. Check the shutter speeds. Set time to 1 second and cock the shutter. Position shutter so that you can see the blades and a second hand on a clock at the same time. Trip the shutter just as the second hand reaches a second mark, shutter blades should fully open and fully close just as the second hand reaches the next second mark. If the shutter is still open or is fully closed by the time the second hand is the width of the second hand before or after the next second mark from trip the shutter needs cleaning. Some shutters will run correct after 3 or 4 trips but go back to slow after a 30 minutes to an hour or more rest. Slow shutter will result in overexposed (dense) negatives, fast shutter in under exposed (thin) negatives. After checking at 1 second set the shutter to 1/2 second and repeat the second hand test. This time the shutter should close just as the second hand is half way between second marks. Continue advancing the shutter speed times and observe that the blades open and close faster. After 1/50 to 1/100 second it will be very hard to detect the change in speed.</p>

<p>What meter mode did you use on your DSLR? What lens was on the DSLR, prime or zoom? </p>

 

 

 

 

<p >Now, you say that you exposed an 125 ISO film on 50 ISO and developed the film as usual that means your film is a way overdeveloped. Actually for example you can lower 400 ISO film to 200 and the effect could be richer grays and if you push the 400 to 800 you got a harsh in gray tunes fatigue negative BUT the developing time must be corrected in both cases.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I could be wrong here but if i remember right when you push a film you increase the developing time and if you lower the ISO/ASA you should also lower developing time</p>

<p>Just as a humbly offered alternative to the developing thoughts above, are the inside lens surfaces quite clean? Over time some older lenses seem to develop thin coatings of something-or-other on the inside lens surfaces. These will reduce contrast. If that is the problem then the cure is to take the lens apart and carefully clean the internal surfaces. </p>

<p>My first thought is shutter accuracy.<br>

Second thought is development: if you've got no clear parts of the neg, ie it's all come out fairly dense, then you have over-developed and/or over-exposed. N-1 would be *both* rating at EI 50 *and* pulling a stop in dev. <br>

I'm never sure why 35mm, 120 and 5x4" should require different developer times - or at least, why one should think the time is important. What matters is the amount of concentrate for the surface area in question; it takes 1ml of rodinal / APH09 / Aculux3 to fully develop a LF sheet, or 4ml for a 120 roll. Dilute to fill the container to desired level and then play-off the agitation and duration to taste. </p>

<p>Some more words here.<br /> The light meter is just a light meter and its measures any given light but, It could be so that you had a 125 ISO film in your holder but you measure the light in your camera after 50 ISO by mistake this of course resulting an overexposed film but if you did expose a 125 film after 50 and not made a mistake than my first theory is valid.<br /> There is no differences in developing time in any given size of the film with a same ISO/ASA and type of film from the same manufacturer and by the manufacturer suggested developer.<br /> In this case I don't really believe the lens theory at all</p>

<p>First place to look is a light leak. Put a filmholder in the camera, almost remove the dark slide (leave a strip of film covered), leave it for 10 mins or whatever, develop normally. If you can see the strip that was covered by the dark slide, you have a light leak. If the negative has a fairly uniform tone, that suggests it's near the front of the bellows, around the lens, or the lensboard seal. If there's a gradient, you're most likely looking at the seal around the filmholder or something near the rear of the bellows.<br>

If you don't feel like wasting a sheet of film (useful anyway for testing your agitation technique in developing), just hold the camera up to a single light bulb in a dark room, stick your head in the back of the camera (back removed, of course), and look for light.</p>

<p>The basic question is how much contrast there was in your scene. I often find that on cloudy days when I spot meter a scene I have only 3 or so zones, rather than the 7 you would like in a well exposed image. If your scene wasn't contrasty your negative won't be either. That's what Adams invented his contrast controls for, or what high contrast papers were for.</p>

<p>About metering:<br>

My DSLR does have a zoom lens. Would a prime lens be better for metering? I set it to iso 100, then to aperture priority, then f32. It gave me a shutter speed of 1/10. So, I set the lens to 1/5 and f32 thus exposing the film at iso 50. I was focused close to infinity, so I didn't bother with bellow extension compensation. Perhaps I need to consider reciprocity?<br>

I'm not sure what meter mode the DSLR was in. That didn't even occur to me. What mode should I use?</p>

<p>About developing:<br>

The times for FP4+ in HC110, dilution B, are: 6mins at iso 50/ 9mins at iso 125/ 12mins at iso 200. I used dilution H, which is half the concentration of dilution B, and developed for 12 mins. So, I did develop the film at iso50.<br>

When agitating, I slosh the tank around, rather than inverting it. Is that method ok?</p>

<p>About the lens:<br>

It isn't the cleanest. The outside of the front element has some grime. The inside of both elements have many sparkly, metallic specks(kind of frightening). The rear element has a few superficial scratches. Can someone link me to a guide on cleaning this lens? What materials do you recomend?<br>

I checked the shutter next to the second hand of a clock, and the one and one half speeds are a little fast. I'll see about checking it electronically.<br>

I'm able to adapt my DSLR to the back of my view camera to take digital pictures through it. I'll post one of those pictures later, and maybe that will help evaluate the lens.</p>

<p>Other stuff:<br>

The boarders of the negative are clear, and there are a few spots in shadows that are clear. It was a somewhat overcast day, so maybe that's whats throwing me off. Also, sky is 60% of the negative and grass is 30% of the negative, so most of the negative looks black or grayish unless you look closer.<br>

I'm using the lens on a Cambo view camera, not an old press camera, and I'm not so worried about light leeks</p>

<p>Charles Monday:<br>

I'm very interested in your first suggestion. The only thing I don't quite understand is the specific method of doing a step exposure series on a piece of paper. Can you please explain? I think you mean that you expose 1/3 of the sheet at f8, 1/3 of the sheet at f11 and 1/3 at f16, using a variety of times of exposures within those 1/3rds(with the blank film in the negative carrier)?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your help. I've learned a lot already!</p>

<p>A prime lens would be better to use but a zoom of f5.6 or faster should give the same reading as a prime lens of the same speed or faster. (fast lens=bigger aperture opening at full open)<br>

Matrix or center weighted metering mode should work fine. Center weight will be closer to a hand held meter. Spot mode will work fine <strong>if</strong> you know how to spot meter a scene.</p>

<p>You over exposed the film, developed for less time which is a contrast reducing technique. Now if it was a low to normal contrast scene the results will be a bit flat. It could be that your agitation technique may not be aggressive enough but if you are getting even development without streaks then stick with it. I recommend increasing development time by 10% to 15%. </p>

<p>Put one of your good negatives and focus it with a grain focuser if you have one with the enlarger lens wide open then step the lens down to the aperture you plan to print at. Put the film base + fog negative into the enlarger and a fresh sheet of photographic paper on the easel. Cover all but a 1 1/2 inch to 2 inch strip of the paper with a sheet of cardboard. Set the timer to 3 seconds. Expose the partially covered paper, move the cardboard over uncovering an unexposed strip approximately the same width as the first and expose for another 3 seconds. Continue in this manner until the full sheet of paper has been exposed with the last strip on the paper 3 seconds. Develop the paper fully, fix, wash, dry. Examine the test print and find the strip where the paper gets no blacker, count the steps to this strip, multiply by 3 and that is the correct exposure time for this paper/film/enlarger/lens/f stop. Changing any of these variables requires a new test. You should use an aperture that will give you an exposure time of 10 to 15 seconds.</p>

<p>You clean a large format lens the same as you would clean any camera lens. Lens tissue may still be around, blower brush, microfiber lens cleaning cloth, very light pressure. This recent thread covers cleaning well: <a href="../large-format-photography-forum/00WS10">http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00WS10</a></p>

<p>Yep, I can't afford a spot meter. Next time, I'll be sure to set the camera to center weighted metering(it was on something called partial metering).</p>

<p>I thought that the reason you overexpose, under-develop when it's overcast is because it increases shadow detail. Is that the same as decreasing contrast?</p>

<p>I think I understand what you're saying to find paper black. It's the same processes that I use when printing, except you're using an unexposed, developed negative, and getting just black white and gray strips. That makes a lot of sense. Then the time and f stop that you first find black is the starting place for printing (when using the same film/lens/enlarger/paper)and helps evaluate the job you did exposing and developing the negative. Right?</p>

<p>You don't use any liquid when cleaning a lens?</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>" Perhaps I need to consider reciprocity? "</p>

<p>Reciprocity correction is to add more time when you find yourself on long exposure times in order to correct the law of reciprocity. But it's differ from manufacturer to manufacturer and from film to film. Some films need more correction some less. Mostly films which have rich silver content baked into the emulsion need to be conpensate in order to rearrange Aghal christals. Check out the Ilfords technical to find it out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You don't use any liquid when cleaning a lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use my breath.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I thought that the reason you overexpose, under-develop when it's overcast is because it increases shadow detail. Is that the same as decreasing contrast?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. As film develops the shadows form first as the silver salts that do not receive any light dissolve off the film first followed by the ones that receive very little light on up to the ones that receive a lot of light, the highlights.<br>

Shortening the development time reduces the contrast as the highlights do not become as dense as they would have been had the film been developed longer, the difference between the mid tones will be affected similarly. A slight increase of exposure and very slight reduction in development can add a little snap.</p>

<p>When you adjust your exposure/development so that your negatives print well at paper black for that film/paper combo then you have a properly exposed and developed negative. Highlights printing gray-increase development time of film; shadows have no detail-increase exposure. Published film speed and development times are starting points for normal daylight exposures. Deviate in 15% increments to find what works best with your equipment. Normal fine tuning results in 1/3 to 2/3 a stop adjustment to exposure from published starting points, use 1 stop or more adjustments when lighting conditions require it.</p>

<p>Setting your meter to 50 for a 125 film is a convent way of adding 1 stop more exposure to the film without having to remember to open up a stop each shot.</p>

<p>"As film develops the shadows form first as the silver salts that do not receive ngy light dissolve off the film first followed by the ones that receive very little light on up to the ones that receive a lot of light, the highlights." - Sorry Charles, but that's not at all how film develops. The image is not formed by silver salts dissolving away, but by being reduced to metallic silver, and it's the most heavily exposed crystals (the highlights) that tend to develop first.</p><p>That out of the way, there is a possibility Graham, that you didn't have sufficient developer for the amount of film you processed. You say you developed more than one sheet at a time - exactly how many sheets in what quantity of developer? And what is HC-110 dilution "H"? The dilutions on my bottle of HC-110 only run up to "F" which will develop 1 roll of 120 film per litre. Now one sheet of 5x4 is about the same area as one-quarter of a roll of 120. So if you developed 6 sheets of 5x4 at a time, you'd need one-and-a-half litres of developer at dilution F, and goodness knows how much at dilution H. So I strongly suspect you simply didn't have enough HC-110 in solution to do the job, resulting in underdevelopment.</p><p>That still doesn't explain the overall fogging you describe. Could the culprit here possibly be your homemade tank or a less than totally pitch black darkroom?</p>

<p>Dilution H is half of dilution B. Take a look at http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ or search HC110 on photo.net to learn about dilution H.</p>

<p>I developed two sheets of film. The tank I made is rather chemical in-efficient, and I needed 1080 mL of solution total. At dilution H, this requires 16.9 mL of developer syrup. You need 6 mL of syrup per one roll of 120/one 8x10 sheet/four 4x5 sheets of film. And I developed two sheets of 4x5. So no, there was no way that I exhausted my developer.</p>

<p>Also, the edges of the sheets were perfectly clear, which leads be to believe that it wasn't an issue of fogging. I'm planning on evaluating my development with the method Charles suggested and adjusting my metering/development from there.</p>

<p>I feel that I got to go in and say some things here about the developing process of the film.</p>

<p>The modern developer have two developing agents, the one is Metol (works on the shadow aria) and the other is hydroquinone (works on the highlighted aria) which is carefully balanced to work together in the process they are super additiv. Which means that they together have higher developing speed than the both of their sum together.</p>

<p>Actually what happens here is that Metol oxidize faster in the beginning of the developing process than hydroquinone and loosing its developing value but this product of oxidation regenerates successive by the hydroquinone and regain its developing ability lather during the developing process.</p>

<p>So from here you can list it out what really happens under those couple of minutes you develop your film if it's overexposed and underdeveloped, but also what happens in normal, over and underdevelopment.</p>

<p>The chemical developing process in chemical terns called for a reduction process /as there is another one called physical development / . In case of the chemical development the developer is the reduction agent. So what happens ruffly is that from the exposed latent image the Ag forms an a visual image which shows first after the fix removed all the unexposed AgHal cristals</p>

<p>OK Graham, sounds like overextended developer isn't the problem.</p>

<p>I have the Ektar 203mm f/7.7, which by all accounts is the same as the Optar. My Ektar is coated and in mint condition and gives images slightly inferior to a modern Plasmat type, both in terms of definition and contrast. It's not a massive difference, but enough that I'd definitely rather use my 180mm Sironar or 210mm Symmar over the Ektar. Having said that, the Ektar has the distinct advantage of being small and light, and will allow my technical camera to be folded up with the lens in place, whereas the other two lenses have to be removed for folding.</p>

<p>So, if it's not the lens, the shutter, or the developer, that doesn't leave much else apart from stale or badly stored film. Any chance it's that? And very dusty or faded bellows can reflect stray light around inside the camera, giving the impression of fogging.</p>

<p>On the developing question. The developed image most certainly <em>can</em> be seen before fixing. How else would development by inspection be possible? And have you guys never seen a print come up in the developer? The base is paper rather than film, and there's no anti-halation backing to make the emulsion look grey, but the principle is exactly the same. And it's easy to see that the highlights always appear first.</p>

<p>It could easily be that the grimy lens with internal sparkles (fungus?) lens is contributing to low contrast. I would carefully clean it with isopropyl alcohol (IPA) on Q-tips, on all four external surfaces that can be accessed removing the elements from the shutter. If this doesn't cure it and the lens isn't pretty much optically clear/perfect at this point-- try another. LF lenses of this kind type (or better ones like the 210mm Caltar II-N) are common enough on eBay that they don't cost but a couple of hundred dollars for very pristine examples.<br>

I've not heard that the the 203 Optars and Ektars are analogous except for focal length. By most accounts the Ektar is head and shoulders the better optic. (And I happen to be a big fan of the Wollensak made Optars, at least the 135mm f/4.7 Tessar designs)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<p >Now the photographic papers sensitometrycal qualities reminds of the film but there is significant differences. The developing process of the paper differ of that from the film because the paper has special compound of emulsion and the paper has an ability to absorb chemicals to. The differences are so complex that I'm not going into as I believe my terminology in English is not enough to explain it.</p>

</p>

<p>Attached is the exposure chart from Ansel Adams book The Negative for determining the EI of a lens/film/developer combination.<br>

I set up a 8x10 Kodak gray card in open shadow, metered it so that I only read the gray card, then positioned the camera so that the gray card was about 1/10 of the frame (big enough to be read by a densitometer) and shot the series of exposures in the chart. I processed the film at printed normal development time for the film/developer then took the negatives to a Pro lab and had them read the gray card density in each of the negatives. Your EI will be affected more by the lens/shutter than by film/developer. If you have a densitometer then zero it on the unexposed/developed negative then read the gray card area of the rest of the test group. The exposure that gives .1 over film base+fog is your EI.<br>

This is for normal scene contrast. For very low contrast scenes you have to establish a longer development time and for a very high contrast scene a shorter development time. </p><div></div>

<p>Frank, I've developed orthochromatic film and blue-sensitive copying film by inspection under safelighting. I can quite categorically tell you that the image is quite clearly visible in the developer, and before fixation, and that the most heavily exposed areas <em>always</em> appear first - just like in a print. This is entirely in line with what textbook theory of exposure and development tells us should happen.</p>

<p>In lightly exposed areas of the film the Ag-Halide crystals will either escape being rendered developable at all, or will gain only one developing site per crystal. In areas of heavy exposure, many more crystals will have at least one developing site, and some larger crystals will gain multiple developing sites. Therefore the most heavily exposed areas are statistically more likely to be reduced to silver, and acted on more rapidly by the developer. This is exactly what we see, and is the reason that extended development in a very dilute developer gives a compensating action, by allowing the weakly exposed shadow areas time to be fully developed while holding back density in the highlights. And BTW, HC-110 does not contain Metol.</p>