HELP! Zoned out! Need advice on N+ Development.

[steve_feldman2]

Hi Gang,

 

I made an exposure of a church entrance arch (ala Barnbaum, Sexton,

et al - Hey, if they've got a good composition - steal it). A nice,

simple composition. A stone arch. Lots of detail. But not much in the

way of tonal separation. Shadow detail placed on zone 3-1/2. But the

brightest spot of the arch only fell on zone 4-1/2. I know, some

might call this a 1 stop difference, others may say 2 stops.

 

What to do. What to do.

 

I'm confident that I could give the neg a N+3 development. But that

would only yield a 4 (or 5, depending on your methodology) stop tonal

range. My question (ah, finally he's cutting to the chase!) is: Can a

neg with such limited range sucessfully respond to N+4 or N+5

development. OR (oy! he's got an "OR") should I not push the issue

(pun intended) stand on the N+3 and go for more contrast with a high

contrast grade paper to make up the difference? (Whew!)

 

FWIW - the specs: Tripod mounted 4x5 Crown Graphic, Ilford HP5-Plus

Rated at ASA 320. 10" Tele-Optar and 135mm Schneider, f32 @ 2 minutes

(this included 1 extra stop exposure for reciprocity), overcast day,

open shade, and had a headache.

 

Development will be in HC-110.

 

Any advice? - - - - Please.

 

Thanks to all.

 

-Steve

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Steve in Barbaum's book he actually made a mistake and exposed a door with an arch to yeild a similar situation as yours. He used bleach in the print to bring out the light zones (increase contrast). I personally would go with the N+3 and then print on harder paper..grade 3, or 4. If you use VC paper then split filtration might do the trick.

I seriously doubt you can do a 5+ expansion...you dont mention what film you are using but I think not even TMX will go that far. Not without fogging and other problems I mean.

 

Another route you might want to take is using masks....spciefically a shadow mask to bring zone V and up higher.....There are many ways to skin a cat...these are some of the ones I am familiar with but you might find something else to suit you better....Good luck and post the pic once you are done with it.

[art_haykin]

Full exploitation of the Zone System includes underexposing combined with overdevelopment to increase contrast. Just how much has to be worked out.

[brian_ellis3]

You have a one stop difference and a two stop range.

 

If you are planning on expansion of the range by development you need to take this into account at the time the photograph is made by increasing the film speed at which the photograph is made (i.e. decreasing the exposure to compensate for the increased development). Recomendations for the amount vary from a third of a stop to a full stop for each plus development. I use one stop myself. So if your normal EI is say 100 for the film in use, and you planned N+3 development, at the time you exposed the negative you would set the film speed to 800 if you increased by a full stop for each plus. Since you presumably didn't do that, if you now give N+3 or +4 development I think you will only end up with a grossly overdeveloped negative rather than getting the kind of contrast you're looking for.

 

Also, not all modern films are susceptible to increases of N plus 3 or 4. I use HP5+ but I never increase beyond N + 1. That's not to say it won't go beyond N+1, just that I don't do it.

 

My inclination would be to perhaps try just N+1 development and then use a high contrast filter when you print. N+1 development shouldn't move the shadows up too much (i.e. the negative won't be grossly overdeveloped even though you didn't compensate for the plus development at the time the photograph was made) and will help increase the highlight density by one stop. The higher contrast filter might then get you pretty close to where you want to be.

[bob_moulton7]

Sexton has stated in one of his workshops that he rarely expands the film beyond N+1. He has said that instead he uses selenium toner on the negative plus a higher contrast paper or filter. Of course he uses T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 extensively and rarely Tri-X.

 

So another alternative exists: develop for N+1, use selenium toner on the negative to achieve about N+2 and then apply necessary filtration + paper + even paper developer. The benefit of this approach is that if an N+3 introduces unwanted variables, such as excessive grain, etc. you avoid that.

 

Excessive grain in 4x5? I don't know how to define that, but I know I want to avoid it.

 

Advice that does you no good now. Technical pan loaded into a holder, EI at 100, place shadow on zone V and process as Tmax 100 N-1 does wonders for low contrast scenes.

Bob

[eugene_singer]

Steve, I also shoot with 4X5 Ilford HP-5+ film. I formerly used Ilford ID-11 developer at 1:1, in open trays. A while back, I began to notice cracks on my fingertips, and a slight itchy rash would form between my fingers, after a film developing session. I suspected that I was beginning to develope an allergic reaction to the Metol in the ID-11 formula. I changed to Ilford Microphen developer (Phenidone, instead of Metol) at the 1:1 dilution. That was a lucky break for me. Microphen is a speed enhancing developer, even at normal development times. The combination of HP-5+ film and Microphen developer is a match made in heaven. It makes my negatives sparkle. I print with a Zone VI variable contrast head on my enlarger. The cold light tubes tend to knock the contrast down a bit. This combination of film and developer solves the contrast problem for me. I recommend it for low contrast situations, such as the one you describe. It's very difficult to achieve more than N+1 with HC110 and HP-5+ film by merely increasing development time. The highlights tend to blow out, and the shadows begin to block up. Anyhow, give Microphen a try. It may surprise you. It certainly was a pleasant surprise to me.

[photobyalan.com]

Brian,

 

I disagree with you about underexposing the film when doing N+ developing. By underexposing, especially by three stops, won't you just be losing detail in the lower values (i.e. shadows)? The first rule of the Zone system is "Expose for the shadows - develop for the highlights."

 

No amount of overdeveloping will bring out detail in the low areas of an underexposed negative - there simply isn't enough exposed silver halide for the developer to make an image. Yes, Steve could underexpose slightly to take the low values even lower, but that would adversely affect the high values as well, requiring even MORE devlopment to get them up to where they should be.

 

I would recommend placing the shadows in Zone III, give N+3 development to build density in the higher values, then tone in selenium at 1+3 for 5-20 minutes as needed to add some more density to the highlights. Even with all this, you will probably need to use a higher contrast paper (or higher contrast filter) to achieve your desired result.

 

To Eugene: Have you tried Latex or Vinyl surgical gloves for tray developing? I have found that the very slight loss of tactile sensation is more than compensated for by the fact that my skin tends to stay on my fingers - a very desirable thing IMHO. I use them all the time when handling film and negatives. It keeps my fingers away from all the chemicals and I can handle (dry) film with impunity and not worry about fingerprints. Just make sure you get the powder-free gloves.

[eugene_singer]

Alan, I have tried working with latex, rubber, and neoprene gloves many times during the fifty-six years that I have been developing film. Using gloves for open tray development of film and paper is like having sex with a condom. I enjoy the tactile experience of handling my materials. Changing to non-Metol (Phenidone) developers for film and paper has solved the sensitivity problem for me. Had I not developed the allergy, I probably would have not discovered that developers formulated with Phenidone give me better results than the Metol developers I had been using for all those years.

[eric_pederson]

Don't forget that you have already added some additional contrast through the reciprocity correction. N dev is probably more like N+1 in contrast results, etc.

Also, you seem to be assuming that the contrast should be high enough to allow the full contrast range of the paper which may or may not be appropriate given the low contrast scene and what you want to do with it.

As stated, if you really want an N=3/4/5 neg, you should go back to the arch and reexpose at a higher EI number or even higher contrast film. If that's not possible, then I would recommend N+2/3 dev and then let printing take care of the rest. (I treat N+2 as the upper limit for HP5+ with EI 800 and Xtol, though I haven't experience trying to go higher in contrast). Since the scene is so low in contrast, you probably don't have that much in the shadows to lose with a high EI....

[james___]

I would also keep the film speed at normal(your normal) and develope for N+2 and then selenium tone the neg and print on a higher contrast paper or higher VC filter. Then you can bleach the print and gain even more contrast. By exposing at a higher ISO you are not giving the film enough silver halide activation and lose the option of selenium toning the neg which can give you anywhere from 1 to 2 zones of increased density. By using a higher film speed you are compressing the low tones and losing the beautiful separation in those areas. And if you read Barnbaum carefully you will find that there are upwards of 17 usable stops of density that can be exploited in the negative and you can print a very dense negative as well as a "perfectly exposed/developed negative and still come out with what you desire.

[jim_galli4]

I agree with Eric. Your reciprocity correction worked for you in that it likely drove your 4 1/2 up to 5 1/2 so N+3 or 2 1/2 should be plenty. HP5 is about the worst stuff I've found to try to get extra at the top, but I'm thinking Pyro.

[brian_ellis3]

Alan - Everything I've ever read about zone system exposure and development says to reduce the exposure when contemplating expansion through development. See, e.g. Adams "The Negative," pp. 78-79; Woods, "The Zone System Craft Book," p. 78. However, after reading your message I realize that I got carried away with that principle when I suggested reducing exposure by three full stops. I agree with you, that would be way too much underexposure and so would certainly leave the shadows too thin. Proabably a one stop underexposure or maybe just a half stop would be much better in the situation being discussed. Thanks for pointing out my error.

[steve_feldman2]

My grateful thanks to all of you for your generous and informative advice.

 

OK - Here's what *really* happened to me. I MESSED UP - BIG TIME!

 

I use a Luna Pro F with a spot attachment. Not used to it yet as a spot meter. I set the necessary dial compensation to -3 when it should have been +3. AARRGGHH!! Negs are bullet-proof. I figure that all my days' work was -+4-5 stops over exposed. AARRGGHH!! But there is still a faint image hiding inside the blackness of the negs. I tried printing one. Lens wide open for 5 min. and acturally got an image. Not a good image - but an image. Fortunately the location is not far from my home - so it's back to the site and try again.

 

I will make many test exposures and notes to see which way is best is this situation. It's only film.

 

Again - MANY THANKS.

 

-Steve

[m0002a]

95% of the time you would be better off just forgetting about the spot meter attachment and use the incident reading. You can adjust the negative contrast (if needed) by altering the development time. Even if you use the spot meter with the Zone System, you could use the incident reading as a sanity check, since it would usually be within 0-1 stops of a Zone System exposure.