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

[conrad_hoffman]

Aiming for maximum black is problematic. What is maximum black? If you have a reflection densitometer you'll find that true maximum black occurs at heavy exposures that aren't practical for the rest of the print. You can't get maximum black in your prints and it's a waste of time to try. What you want is something the eye considers to be black for the scene in question. Once again, the MK I eyeball is the best tool for the job. That said, enlarging times through processed film base should give you reasonable visual black, not grey, so let that be your minimum. Naturally you're timing your development and not pulling prints prematurely, right?

Edited December 2, 2022 by conrad_hoffman

[Deon Reynolds]

1 hour ago, conrad_hoffman said:

Aiming for maximum black is problematic. What is maximum black? If you have a reflection densitometer you'll find that true maximum black occurs at heavy exposures that aren't practical for the rest of the print. You can't get maximum black in your prints and it's a waste of time to try. What you want is something the eye considers to be black for the scene in question.

Exactly! What is maximum black and why do you even need it? I think of photography as an art form, open to personal interpretations of the creator, not a math problem.

[tom_halfhill]

Most subjects have a tonal range wider than film can capture, and most negatives have a tonal range wider than prints can reproduce. Therefore, printing for maximum black (and minimum white) preserves the widest tonal range possible on paper, sacrificing the least amount of tonal range in the negative. It's the way to make a full-toned print.

Of course, there are exceptions. A picture on foggy day or a snowy day might range from dark gray to light gray, possibly within the range of the film and the paper. But usually there's something totally black or totally white in the picture.

Because photography is an art, it's of course acceptable to make subjective departures from the objectively best rendering of a scene. Because photography is also a science, it's of course desirable to make the objectively best rendering of a scene. In my opinion, full-toned prints just look better than midtoned prints that appear as if they were yanked from the Dektol too soon.

An analogy is music reproduction. I like to hear the thump of a bass guitar and the sizzle of the cymbals. Turning down the bass knob and the treble knob will reduce both, leaving only the midrange tones. Some listeners may prefer "gray music," but I want to hear a recording that's closer to the original performance. Why buy good speakers if you sacrifice their tonal range? And why buy good photographic equipment and materials if you want to sacrifice their tonal range?