Ever try printing HP5 overexposed to the degree necessary to push the whole subject way up the curve? Good luck. I used to do it routinely, simply to get incredible
midtone microtonality. But even with VC papers, I had to add a supplementary unsharp silver mask, and have a plutonium-powered cold light with enough punch to
do it correctly, or else the highs would just plain blow out. HP5 has its distinct look, but with regard to strong luminance ranges, TMY or old-school straight-line films like Super XX and Bergger 200 make it SOOOOO much easier. So yeah, you are kinda reading the curves unrealistically.
I don't disagree that there are challenges as exposure goes up but plutonium-powered?
How?
The paper has a certain range, a negative generally has more, TMY might qualify as a lot more.
We can play with the shape of the film curve (make the curve steeper or flatter), we can play with the print grade (spread or close the red lines a bit), or we can burn and dodge (to print from the areas outside the red lines).
What am I missing?
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. ~ Mark Twain
Oh you can do it, all right. But with what implications? I earned a phD in HP5 from the school of Hard Knocks. It might be a little bit easier nowadays given the superior quality of recent VC papers, as well as the PS curve-reconfiguration route. But the traditional way - compensating or minus development, or lower grades of paper (as if there were many graded paper left) - pretty much sacrifices the lovely midtone tonality potential which makes HP5 so special. I did it with masking, which I was pretty comfortable with anyway, due to all my color printing need of it. In this case, combining the need for a relatively fast film speed with big enlargement and high-contrast lighting conditions just made TMY the obvious candidate. I've certainly taken my share of shots under analogous conditions with both HP5 and FP5 and understand the practical shortcomings all too well. Under softer lighting, or without much wind or motion, that's a different story. These are all superb films, but each one has its particular strengths and weaknesses. None are cheap in 8x10, so I'd rather not guess.
There are quite a few disadvantages to printing an overexposed "thick" negative. (Don't confuse this with "thick emulsion" terminology). That habit seems to be a
tradition carried over from alt contact printing, but can be problematic in ordinary silver printing. Once you get too much density, it just equals headaches. And if
you add a mask, you need more firepower (though many of us do have relatively strong light sources to print from). So not having time to elaborate at the moment,
I'd just point out the distinction between "salvage" printing of less than ideal negs, and doing it the fast and easy way with something more reasonable. I break quite
a few rules myself from time to time, so understand the implications in terms of practicality.
Bookmarks