Proper Proofs

[Peter Lewin]

I'm going to post a question for which I will actually have much more information in several hours, when the film in the washer is done and dry and I can scan it. But anyway, my question is whether there is a digital equivalent to what Fred Picker termed a "proper proof?"

Since it has been below freezing this week I've been experimenting. First, pictures of my living room, which involved reciprocity effects. So I exposed at Ilford's recommended correction (HP-5+) and then at a calculated correction factor which, IIRC, came from View Camera magazine, and was much longer.

Next I found some outdated Tri-X in my basement, so I set up a quick still life and exposed at 200, 100, 50, and 25 ASA, to see if it is usable.

I could see as the negs came out of the PMK that they all have images, but of course there should be some pretty noticeable density and shadow detail differences. But my scanner seems to correct for density, I.e. it tries to give me a reasonable scan regardless of differences in negatives. A proper proof would of course tell me which exposures were best, but I'm not sure if I will be able to tell as easily from the scans. Any thoughts? (I won't be offended if the answer is to just be patient and see what comes out later tonight.)

[Pawlowski6132]

The more time I spend in the DR, the less value I see in this whole concept of the Proper Proof, ESPECIALLY when you trying to evaluate your film exposure. Seems pointless.

[Peter Lewin]

The more time I spend in the DR, the less value I see in this whole concept of the Proper Proof, ESPECIALLY when you trying to evaluate your film exposure. Seems pointless.
Well, I want to say I disagree, but perhaps that is a large part of my question! The film speed and development tests that I grew up with all are based on "proper proofs," i.e. knowing your enlarger and timer settings for minimum black, testing speed and development by making prints of either zone III or zone VIII exposures. It seems to me that with scanners, you no longer have a baseline to work from, because the scanning software is automatically correcting for exposure problems. At the same time, scanners are very convenient, I hardly make "wet" contact sheets any more. I scan and inkjet my contacts (by scanning the printfile page) and work prints (negative scan and simple photoshop), and only go into the darkroom for the few prints that I really like. But with that workflow I don't really know how good my negatives are any more. So I seem to be "in between" the wet and digital camps.

[Cletus]

I don't do any scanning myself, nor do I know what, exactly, is meant by a "proper proof". I am however, quite concerned with correct exposure, density and contrast range of a developed negative. For the most part you should be able to evaluate a good negative by eye and with a little experience on a lightboard. Especially when you're directly comparing similar negatives the way it sounds like you're doing.

The other option, if you need something more precise, is to do what I'm doing now - getting a transmission densitometer. It is possible that your scanner software has a 'densitometer' feature, although I don't know how that might compare to a direct reading from an actual densitometer. Might even be better, I don't know.

Anyway, for me these days, actual densities and density ranges have become more significant to the processes I'm using, thus, the small investment in the used densitometer. I don't now of any ther way to positively evaluate a negative.

[Peter Gomena]

A "proper proof" is one that has the rebate edge of the film printed to the paper's d-max or very, very close to it. By doing so, you print through the films base+fog density and can judge exposure and development of the negative accurately. It's a good practice for film photographers simply because it gives you a consistent base from which to judge results. This is especially valuable as a check on your process if you don't have ready access to a densitometer.

If you scan your negatives, setting the black point so the rebate edge scans as "0" RGB levels density (or 100% black) would be the equivalent. In that case, only specular highlights should read 255 RGB levels or 0% black.

I taught someone who was a very precise B&W technician to scan once upon a time. He had learned to use the Beyond the Zone System method of exposure and development. Most of his negatives were so well processed that highlights never quite hit the right side of the histogram. He had an easy time becoming proficient with his scanner.

[Pawlowski6132]

Anyway, for me these days, actual densities and density ranges have become more significant to the processes I'm using, thus, the small investment in the used densitometer. I don't now of any ther way to positively evaluate a negative. Why are you trying to evaluate your negative? Why wouldn't you just print it??

[Pawlowski6132]

No matter how good or bad the negative looks, do what pawlowski6132 says. You might be surprised which neg you think is technically deficient makes the best final image.

That's ironic that you would say that. The light bulb for me finally started going off when I noticed that some negatives that were "underexposed" and didn't look good on my proper proof sheet (35mm roll film) looked great 12 seconds "over exposed" in the final print. I noticed this when I made a test strip for the proof sheet.

I still make a proper proof of my film shots but ONLY use these proof sheets to pick a negative to print based on whether the subject was in focus, I like my composition, etc. Any film that is too thin or too dense +/- 2 stops can be printed on VC paper.

[Peter Lewin]

Well, I'm back, but I'm still not happy! First, if anyone is interested, you can see some scans of my testing in the "2013 Still Life" and "Around the House" threads in the "Post Your Images" forum. I'm rather happy with the resulting images, but unhappy in that the scanner seems to make everything equal! I scanned my four outdated Tri-X negatives, exposed at 200, 100, 50, and 25 ASA, and they all looked printable from the scanner! So I scanned the 50 ASA version, but I'm pretty sure that the 100 ASA and 25 ASA versions would have also worked well, and maybe even the 200! Then I scanned my reciprocity test negs, and while one corrected 30 seconds metered to 1 minute, and the other corrected it to 2 1/2 minutes, lo and behold, both would work. I guess I'm unhappy because it is beginning to seem that the scanning software allows for sloppy metering and exposure, which just doesn't seem right.

Edit: So that this makes sense, first I scanned the negatives side-by-side in their printfile sleeves to make contact sheets, and that was the basis for my saying that they all looked printable; I expected much more significant differences than I saw. Then I really guessed which particular negatives to scan and post.