How many use the minimum exposure for maximum black process in the darkroom

[Terryro]

As a newbie not sure if this question has been brought up before.  Just curious how many use this method for their B&W printing and have used it for determining their standard film and processing times.

[kmac]

"maximum black process in the darkroom"

Never heard of it. Does it mean underexposed film or some such?

Edited November 13, 2022 by kmac

[Terryro]

It's a process for obtaining a full range of tones from B&W paper from darkest black to whitest white in your prints.  Maybe old school technique not used anymore.  It's a way of finding out the best exposure, developing time for your camera, your film and paper setup as a starting point.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Terryro
add more info

[Alan Marcus]

Photofinishing printing equipment -- one method - measure the density of clear film and use that value to calculate an exposure that will yield a D-max on photo paper. Photofinishing uses standardized developer strength @ a standardized temperature. This method yields a high acceptability rate with minimum paper waste.  

[Terryro]

Yes Alan well said.  This is very similar principle.  You have a standard printing time for maximum black then test your camera, film, developer combination.  This gives you a pretty consistent starting point for your film/darkroom work.

[Jochen_S]

To my (admittedly limited) understanding: Photography tends to be a huge mess of ill digested variables, that you 'll hopefully be able to straighten out while printing. 

How will my camera influence base density of an exposed neg? Pinholes in the bellows and other light leaks fogging?

Do we assume that I (<-LOL!) understood the Zone System and measured accordingly? Will I always shoot the same kind of subject in similar light? I am more likely to happy go lucky with sloppier metering methods and extremely variable scenes, if I shoot film.

Is measureing the density of my negs with an ancient optical (i.e. sensor less) densitometer likely to get me much closer to a perfect print? 

I used to own some darkroom meter but gave it away, feeling that it didn't get me close enough, to bother with it. Test stripes work for me. No, I am not fast.

[James G. Dainis]

I wonder if this is the same as determining max black exposure time for developing the paper. Place a blank (to account for film density) negative in the enlarger. Set the lens aperture to say, f-11. Place the photo paper on the easel covered with a cardboard. Turn on the enlarger and move the cardboard down about 1/2 inch per second.  When the paper has been fully exposed develop the paper.  If you see that maximum black was achieved at, say, 14 seconds (15 sec, 16 sec, 17 sec are all equally dark) then you know the desired printer setting for that film. All of the same films should be developed at f/11, 14 seconds. If a print comes out too light then the film was over exposed; if a print comes out too dark then the film was underexposed.

[Bill C]

5 hours ago, Terryro said:

It's a process for obtaining a full range of tones from B&W paper from darkest black to whitest white in your prints.  Maybe old school technique not used anymore.  It's a way of finding out the best exposure, developing time for your camera, your film and paper setup as a starting point.

Hi, I understand how the method works, but I would characterize it as a method to find the minimum workable film exposure. I personally wouldn't want to work that way as it leaves no cushion for an exposure error on the "under" side (nor for any accidental under-development). If you could be sure that your film exposures are always near perfect (whatever that actually means) then I'd say it ought to work ok. But my question would be, why put yourself into such a touchy situation when there is no real need to do so?

 

Fwiw I'm making the assumption that you want to print optically onto a "standard" grade of photo paper. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Bill C

[maris_rusis]

I like photographic prints with a full tonal scale from black to white but the "beating heart" of the photograph is the run of mid-tones. Maximum black is reserved for tiny areas like bare twigs against a sky or deep hollows in wood. Similarly maximum white is reserved for tiny specular highlights where the eye would not expect to see detail.
Hinging a printing strategy on these mini black/white details surrenders creative control of the most important part of the photograph - those mid-tones. Or so I reckon.

As for film exposure I try to give maximum useable exposure. Film is a reservoir of spatial and luminance information and more exposure means more information until the highlights get blocked. I know where this limit is and work just below it. And at the printing stage any lower negative density can be rendered as black, any higher density as white. With modern variable contrast enlarging papers and a bit of practice in burning and dodging I find negative densities don't necessarily mandate particular tone values in the positive.

[Terryro]

The minimum exposure for maximum black for the paper is to get black but not over print to dull the highlights.  After adjusting the film and processing for this method it really improved my amount of full scale negatives that I get from a roll.  Might not be something for everyone but it works for me. Especially when I try out new films or developers.  This gives me a consistent beginning reference point.  Maybe more useful for me as I still print on older Agfa paper that has been frozen for years

[Bill C]

2 hours ago, Terryro said:

After adjusting the film and processing for this method it really improved my amount of full scale negatives that I get from a roll.  Might not be something for everyone but it works for me.

Hi, let me pose a question... what would you do in a difficult-to-meter situation? Say, for example, performers on stage, such that you cannot get close enough for precise metering?

In such a case any under-exposure error means that you won't be able to get a good black on the print, right?

[jose_angel]

What Bill says...

I don't have my shooting policy restricted to those levels of accuracy. As usual with "calibrated methods", they work under strictly controlled scenarios and procedures, but they are just a dream in (my) real life. So I keep my exposure and development charts as close to optimal as I can, but also tend to "intuitively" tweak them in the field to work faster or avoid too much hassle. This way I get the right densities on the main areas (or I want to believe I`m getting them!) but the whole balance is far from perfect. 
So once on the printing table, I usually apply all kinds of tricks to get what I'm looking for. There is no direct "easy" printing, usually.

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by jose_angel

[glen_h]

Seems to me what you would do in the days before variable contrast paper.

Note that usual black and white films have a gamma a little less than 1, maybe 0.7 or 0.8.

(Not as low as the 0.5 for color negatives.)

 

Black and white paper has a higher gamma to make up for that of the film,

and then a little more, as that is the way people like to see it.

 

The lower gamma of the film is what gives exposure latitude, that you then

adjust for when printing. 

Color film assumes an exposure, and usually color balance, system for printing.

Black and white, you can get close enough with a few test strips.

Except with grade 4 paper, or filter for VC: then you have to get the exposure pretty close.

[hjoseph7]

On 11/13/2022 at 11:45 AM, Terryro said:

As a newbie not sure if this question has been brought up before.  Just curious how many use this method for their B&W printing and have used it for determining their standard film and processing times.

If I remember correctly when shooting B&W film, we were told to "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights". This meant that we had to point our light meter at the darkest area of a scene and work from there. I was never an expert printer, so often when I used this technique my highlights would wind up blowing out, unless I reduced development somehow. After a while, I tended to avoid high contrast scenes, scenes that did not fit in the range of the film's latitude. It saved me a lot of headaches and frustration in the dark room.   

[rodeo_joe1]

In general you should always aim to have some part of the print at maximum black, even if it's only a tiny spot. But I don't think it's a good idea to tailor your exposure and developing to always have only a base+fog density somewhere in the negative. The real world isn't lit like that, nor does it have a standardised and consistent reflective range. It would make things a lot easier if it did! 

A colour negative, for example, can rarely be successfully printed or scanned based on the unexposed blank area around the frame. Yet the C-41 developing process is tightly controlled and consistent, or should be. While modern (post 1980) TTL cameras also give a very consistent exposure (good enough for slide film at least). Yet sadly, that quite tight control over exposure and processing doesn't translate into a standard printing time or filtration for colour negatives, based on the unexposed film area. 

So I'm afraid that this idea of simply getting a base+fog density to print as Dmax, while an attractive notion, just doesn't work in practice. At least not very often. 

So don't get sucked into the non-creative vortex of constant testing, calibration, trying different developers, etc., etc. and blah, blah, blah that the chicanery of using film can engender. 

Stick to one film at box speed, and one developer at maker's time and temperature, until you know their tonal characteristics inside out. Use an incident or known good TTL exposure meter, and stay sane!

If you want to challenge your skills, then improve your knowledge of lighting, composition, anticipation of a picture opportunity, etc. Viewers of your pictures will thank you for it. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[James G. Dainis]

"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" (the Zone System) is good for individual large format films  or 35mm film that is shot when the scenes all have the same range contrasts. Underdeveloping a frame that has a high contrast range will work well but if the next frame was shot of a low contrast range then the highlights will be very low resulting in a flat negative; good blacks, dark gray highlights. That last frame would have called for overdevelopment to brighten up the highlights but then the previous frame would have blown highlights.

Edited November 18, 2022 by James G. Dainis

[rodeo_joe1]

"Expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves" was a maxim that long pre-dated the Zone system. 

It's written here in an old volume ironically titled 'Photography Today'. 

And, Wow! That's why we don't copy flat artwork with a phone camera. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[royfisher]

Driffield wrote an article* that was published in 1903 (more than three decades before Photography Today) in which he describes exposing for the darker values and adjusting development to accommodate the lighter ones.  There aren't any catchy phrases in this article; nonetheless, a version of "expose for the shadows and develop for the high values" is expressed:

• "[T]he deepest shadow of a correctly-exposed negative is necessarily represented by a certain deposit of silver."

• "The development factor [...] for an interior requires to be less than that for an open landscape, in order to adapt their respective light-intensities to the range of the paper upon which the print is to be made."

* Vero C. Driffield.  "The Hurter and Driffield System," The Photo-Miniature, Vol. V., No. 56, November, 1903.  Reprinted in The Photographic Researches of Ferdinand Hurter & Vero C. Driffield, Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain, 1920, pages 306, 314, and 301 (below).

Adams quotes a line from this article in the front matter of The Print (1950):

• "The photographer who combines scientific method with artistic skill is in the best possible position to produce good work."

[Terryro]

Thank you all for the responses to my question.  Perhaps I was miss leading when I said I was a newbie.  I apologize.   I'm a newbie to posting on the site.  I've been involved with photography for over 50 years.  This includes photo labs with C-41, E6, B&W, custom photo printing, wedding & studio portrait photography, forensic photography, medical film photo equipment and I've worked in my personal darkroom since 1974.  I work with many formats from 8x10, 4x5, 120/220, 35 and 21/4 x 31/4 sheet film formats.  Each has it's own quirks and yes most of my equipment is older mechanical style. So the system of calibrating minimum exposure coupled with calibrating film, cameras, developer and film to this standard really helps me with multiple systems. I was curious how many others used the same system.   Yes the system is similar to a zone system in that it gives you a standard starting point to deviate from if needed.  Similar but not as involved.  As a for instance with my 35 film cameras T-Max 100 is ISO 100 but with my 120 cameras it's ISO 50 to get the best negatives.  Different lens, camera, meter.  Again thanks for the interest and responses.    

[JDMvW]

Beats me, but here is one aid to printing

[hjoseph7]

Here is an enlarging meter that actually talks about the maximum Black Process/Minimum time:  http://www.darkroomautomation.com/em.htm although I'm not sure if that's what you really meant ?  

[tom_halfhill]

Expose a print for the minimum time to reach the paper's maximum black through the clear film edge. If the print is too dark, the film was underexposed or underdeveloped. If the print is too light, the film was overexposed or overdeveloped. Adjust your future exposures or development time accordingly.

If the print was too dark and you shorten the exposure, no part of the print will be maximum black. The best you can get is dark gray. You can recover the blacks by increasing the contrast (e.g., by using a harder paper grade or a higher-contrast filter), but it will compress other tones as well, such as the midtones, so you will sacrifice some quality.

If the print was too light and you lengthen the exposure, you can come closer to a full-scale print, but it won't be quite as good as a print made from a properly exposed and developed negative. Overexposing or overdeveloping the film compresses the contrast.

You can determine the minimum time to reach the paper's maximum black by making a test strip with the clear edge of the negative showing. Or you can use a piece of clear film from the beginning or end of the same roll.
 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 11/28/2022 at 1:11 AM, hjoseph7 said:

Here is an enlarging meter that actually talks about the maximum Black Process/Minimum time:  http://www.darkroomautomation.com/em.htm although I'm not sure if that's what you really meant ?  

Only about 50 years too late to market! 

FWIW, many years ago I built a simple lensed-photodiode sensor that sat beside the enlarging lens to read the reflected light off the printing paper. Coupled to a purpose-built timer, it switched off the enlarging lamp when the integrated light reached a calibrated level.

Effectively it was an averaging enlarger meter, and it worked well enough for printing proofs and snapshots. 

Then along came commercial enlarger meters that spot-metered from the baseboard, and similar colour analysers. All useful, but none totally replacing a test-print and the Mk 1 eyeball. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[Deon Reynolds]

Sounds super complicated, but very interesting! I use the zone system for exposure, a test strip in the darkroom and more often than not, I nailing it on the first print. But then I've also been in the darkroom for over 50 years. Things get intuitive and just happen after you practice a few times...

[rodeo_joe1]

On 12/1/2022 at 4:21 PM, Deon Reynolds said:

But then I've also been in the darkroom for over 50 years.

Wow! Your night vision must be well adjusted by now, but aren't you afraid of vitamin D deficiency? 

(Sorry, just couldn't resist that.)😆