Processing, contrast, density, developing

[abica]

I recently moved into a house in which I was able to build a proper darkroom

after many years of being away from the craft. I left off in my late teens, and

being a technically-minded person, I was able to jump right back into basic

processing/printing without missing a beat...actually I am much more patient,

deliberate, and precise now, so I anticipate better results.<br><br>

 

At any rate, I have processed enough film recently to identify two consistent

trends. 1) that I am making dense negatives, which I consider a good thing and

2) that the negs seem to be too contrasty...I am generally printing around grade

4 to get results I like (those which contain some actual blacks and whites), but

the downside is that the print is then too contrasty. It seems I'm missing the

boat somewhere...in that I want some max black and white showing up in the

print, but I also want grey tones.<br><br>

 

My question is quickly falling apart. <br><br>

 

From poking about in the forum here, I have decided that:<br><br>

 

1) If I continue shooting in the manner I have been (which came from a habit of

shooting superia 800 and overexposing a stop) I get good, dense negs. <br><br>

 

2) Therefore, perhaps I could mess with developer dilutions, developer formulas,

or <i>shorten developing time in my current developer</i>??? My basis for this

assumption is that I have plenty of density to play with, so sacrificing a bit

by shortening developing time might have the effect of reducing contrast and

scoring me some nice subtle grey tones.<br><br>

 

Boy, I could be way off the mark here.<br><br>

 

Grain is not something I have issue with; everything looks good in that

department...at least good enough that I don't see it as an issue at this point.

Maybe it could be fine-tuned later. My main issue, as stated, is contrast

control, in that (intending no offense) my photos really look like "first year

photo student" work. Which is essentially what it is, after all. Its just a

bit jarring after working with digital for a couple years, where I had 'easy'

control over so much of the process and only complained about the typical

digital woes.<br><br>

 

Sorry for the slightly disjointed, poorly focused question, but its friday and I

don't yet have internet access at home, so I must post this from work so it may

be discussed over the weekend. <br><br>

 

I would really appreciate a discussion of any relevant subjects you folks might

think of regarding this general query. I will probably do some scans this

weekend of some of the 35mm stuff, left in 'negative' so we can analyze the

physical aspects of the negs next week. (I really need to make some prints too,

to check out some of the latest stuff, but my Gralab is emitting a death rattle

and my fancy new f-stop timer has not yet arrived).<br><br>

 

I am shooting TMX,TMY,TMZ, HP5, and some other ilford stuff. I am developing in

tmax developer. Results across that range of films are pretty consistent when

taking into consideration the obvious differences in films.<br><br>

 

Thanks,<br><br>

 

joe

[randall ellis]

You control contrast by altering the exposure and development. I put an article on my <A href="http://www.redisonellis.com">website</A> about it. Just click the 'Articles' link on the lower left and then click the article titled 'Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights'. It's not very technical, but it will allow you to control the contrast in your negatives with repeatability.

<BR><BR>

- Randy

[brucecahn]

Why would you overexpose a stop? That is part of the reason why you need grade 4 paper. You should make a negative that prints on grade 2 paper. Less exposure and development. Too thick a negative gives very poor quality and resolution. T-Max is not the best film in most circumstances. I would only use it (100) if very considerable enlargement is required. It blocks up the highlights and makes prints without the subtlety you could have with Bergger, PlusX or TriX. Also you should be aware that most B&W films are over rated in terms of speed for marketing reasons. Bergger 200 is best at 100, Tri-X 320 is best at 125, etc. Using the speed on the box makes overly contrasty negatives.

[tripanfal]

I haven't really been doing this all that long but here goes:

 

Why do you consider dense negatives a good thing? I always aim for negatives that are exposed properly that will print with no filtration. (to start at least)I would not overexpose a stop (or more)unless it is called for (snowy scenes for example, and then you will still end up with properly exposed negs.)

 

When I have dense negatives, they are already contrasty and if anything, need to be printed with a 1 or less to tame it.

 

Fortunately I don't have much experience trying to fight with dense negatives. From my reading you should aim for a properly exposed negative (generally speaking) Dense negatives (or thin ones for that matter) can be printed well, it just takes more work.

 

I'm sure the more experienced will chime in, and possibly correct me too:)

[j.w.]

Many folks who shoot B/W film under scenic, high-contrast daylit conditions will overexpose the film a bit (say 320 for a film rated at 400); then underdevelop maybe 10-20%. This will have the tendency to make a negative with a full tonal range but less contrast, making it easier to print.

 

The general concept here is the slight over-exposure helps to ensure that the shadows received enough exposure so as to show some density on the negative; conversely the slight under-development helps to ensure that the highlights don't become too dense during development.

 

All the hoopla surrounding the Zone System and variants are to ensure a more predictable method to deliver the scene's brightness range onto a negative whose contrast is within normally accepted limits for printing. Thus, ideally, each negative would be custom processed to ensure the scene's brightness range fit onto the film at a 'normal' contrast.

 

But it's not necessary to be a 'Zonie' to achieve good results. Just be consistent with your process, understand where the problems are and correct accordingly.

 

I should also mention that the degree of agitation will also affect contrast, as well as granularity, of the negative; any development regimen should be consistent as far as agitation is concerned. You could therefore keep the same development time as before, but agitate less, resulting in less contrast and less granularity; the danger in overdoing this (that is, underdoing the agitation) is the risk of artifacts from uneven development.

 

I should also mention that, with regard to negative density, if your intention is primarily to scan negatives and print using non-silver methods, a thinner negative is preferred for scanning; this isn't always the best negative for optical enlargement printing onto silver, however.

[abica]

Randy - I remember reading that article "recently" but I had forgotten all about the principles. Thanks!

 

Bruce - I was over-exposing a bit to add density, remembering being less than thrilled by the overly-thin negatives I used to produce when I had no experience and had less of a grip on exposure (they tended to be...all over the map back then, but leaning toward under-exposed).

 

I didn't realize dense negs would hamper resolution.

 

Christopher - I consider(-ed as of now, having read these posts) high density a good thing under a theory in my head that 'more information' is a good thing. Additionally, I theorized that more density equates longer exposures, and longer exposures would theoretically be easier to fine-tune with small adjustments to time than short exposures; 1 second being very minor in a 30 second exposure, being much more drastic in a 7 second exposure.

 

I don't personally like to test a print with no filtration, fearing futility and knowing that I would just have to change exposure times anyway. Therefore, I always start working with a negative using a #2 filter. Everything I have attempted to print, however, causes me to climb to a #4.

 

I suppose I am simply afraid of too-thin negatives, but in consideration of what you told me, and considering my ability to control exposure much more reliably then when I was starting out, I should progress toward thinner negs which would exhibit more delicate gradation.

 

Joe- Yes yes this is what I am going for. And the under-development is what I need to do to 'complete the circle.' I just wasn't able to articulate the idea very well, in that is not a totally solidified concept in my mind just yet.

 

With regard to consistency, that is one thing that I am very big on these days. I don't change more than one variable at once (actually I haven't changed any variables in processing in my 'new lab').

 

To be more specific, I develop at 68, but I don't hold the tank in a water bath. I might try doing that, because I have not measured chem temp on the way out of the tank. I begin filling the tank when the timer starts, I begin dumping when it stops. I agitate by aprox. 1 sec slow inversion, then bang once on table, rotate 1/4 turn, another inversion, bang, rotate, invert, bang, etc. for 1 minute at the start of the cycle, and then two inversions (in different 'directions') and a bang at the top of every subsequent minute. It is a very rhythmic process. The minute of initial agitation might be a bit much, but the process is very slow, so I don't think it is excessive (I have never had surge marks, that's for sure - I am on the extreme other end, very deliberate).

 

Therefore, I don't think I should agitate less...my current agitation, in my opinion, does not greatly contribute to the chemical reaction. But that is just an opinion.

 

I really should provide some negative scans for this conversation. Many thanks to everyone for taking the time to discuss this topic with me. It helps to get the opinions of experienced folks who all have really amazing work in their portfolios.

 

I had planned to shoot a few rolls of 200 fuji press this weekend, thanks to the '78 and sunny' weather we have in the StL area this weekend, but I am going to have to drag along an extra rig and a few rolls of b&w too, which I will expose as I have been ("erring toward over-exposure after evaluating a scene" is how I should have described my exposure method. I realize now how sloppy the 'one stop over' explanation was). I will then back off developing time 10%.

 

Let me see...in my fridge sits some 120 TMX and TMY, and 35 is mostly hp5+ if I recall. Hopefully I will shoot, soup, and scan them by Monday for a comparison.

 

Thanks again for the direction. If my posts seem a bit broken up, it is because I am at work and occasionally am rudely interrupted by my boss. No, not for work reasons, but for batteries for his Leicas. I now charge onward with other good stuff to think about.

 

-jw

[stephen_allan]

Hi Joe,

 

While it is best to aim for negatives that are going to print well in the grade 2 - 2.5 range, you may be able to do more with the negs you already have if you try pre-development bleaching.

 

After exposing your print, and before developing it, treat it in a bath of very dilute potassium ferricyanide for one-or-two minutes. This affects the latent image, and has the opposite effect to bleaching the finished print; in that rather than bleaching the highlights, it works most in the shadow and midtone areas of the print.

 

This gives a print with bright highlights, reflecting the grade it has been printed at, but with reduced contrast in the rest of the print. The longer the tratment, the greater the reduction of contrast in the shadows/midtones.

 

The ferri does need to be extremely dilute. From a 10% stock solution, dilute 10 ml in a litre to get an intermediate stock, then dilute perhaps 10 - 50 ml of the intermediate to a litre to get a one-shot working solution.

 

Steve

[big toys are better]

I'm not sure that overexposure is the problem as suggested by some. Rather, the key information here is that you have dense images and high contrast-- thus you have over-development even if you didn't intend to do so. The tabular grained films are pretty intolerant of errors in exposure and processing while the HP-5 or Tri-X would be more tolerant, so if the problems are mostly with the tabular films, this would a be a good clue as to the real problem.

 

Dense negatives tend to have larger grain and well exposed shadows with good mid-tone separation while the highlights may be over-saturated and consequently flat and poorly separated. The real trick in developing silver based images is finding the sweet spot between exposure and development-- i.e. The Zone System philosophy. This is more difficult to achieve with tabular grained films like the T-max and Delta brands, and developer choice and technique are also critical. Practice may not make perfect but it could well get you close.

[chris_waller]

Aim to produce a negative of the lowest density which will print to a full range of tones on a grade 2 or 2.5 paper. I typically downrate film, i.e. overexpose it, BUT I reduce dev time to control contrast. Modern films, as noted above, are intolerant of overexposure and inexact development.

 

If you've been away from the darkroom for some years then it might be worthwhile starting off with something like Ilford FP4, a film I have recently returned to after about 15 years.<div></div>

[gary_gumanow]

The same thing happened to me... time away and such. When I came back I couldn't print anything without it being mud.

 

I think the issue is contrast filters. Make sure you have them. When I was a teen I didn't use them, now you can't print without them.

 

YOU MUST USE CONTRAST FILTERS!

[abica]

Thanks for the responses. I have shortened development times a bit, and the last two rolls I souped looked pretty nice (TMX). I am continuing to give the film plenty of light and I am knocking 10% off my dev times. I noticed a bit finer grain when doing that with t-max developer on TMX. I am still getting plenty of density, but more subtle gradation and less blocked highlights, which were my chief problem before. (It can be a challenge to learn to think about, speak about, and identify 'what is actually the problem' with things like this.)

 

Not being one to go 'halfway' in a project, I have ordered 100 feet each of pan-f and hp5. Now I must figure out a developer to use with these films to begin to standardize my process. Ive read alot of good stuff on the forum and I am about to make my choice.

 

Reading "The Print" has also helped me out over the last week or so. I have been adjusting highlights with exposure and shadows with contrast per the AA method, and am getting better results than before. Now I am convinced I need to go buy "The Negative" after gaining so much knowledge from this book in such a short amount of time.

 

I guess I will re-visit this after final exams and post some before-after scans for posterity.

 

Finally, Gary...I did the same thing when I was younger...printing without filters. How stupid. Of course, I had no filter drawer on that enlarger, and holding them under the lens must have been too much work.

 

regards, jw