Using film development to control contrast

[Bill Burk]

I think you are on-track...

I like your thinking. By bringing up the temperature... And backing down the time even less than the calculated time... I think you adjusted both for temperature and you anticipated the impact of greater Hydroquinone activity. I don't think the time-temperature scale took the different "temperature coefficients" of the developer components into consideration.

It would be nicer if you had a longer development time... just for uniform development's sake. Maybe you will find you need to increase the time anyway for this shot.

[Doremus Scudder]

If you need more contrast, you need to increase development time, not decrease it! The fact that you have a dense negative with low contrast points to overexposure, not overdevelopment.

Strictly speaking, you are putting the cart before the horse a bit by not finding a a personal film speed (E.I.) before you go tweaking development times for contrast. If your shadow detail is alright, then you are likely close. Erring on the side of overexposure is okay for a bit, but too much overexposure will yield dense negs with highlights that have less separation due to being pushed up onto the shoulder of the film curve.

I'm sure you also realize that finding a development time for a negative shot on an overcast day and a subject with low-contrast lighting will only give you the proper development time for similar subjects in similar lighting.

Save yourself some time by establishing a personal E.I. first. If you want to cut corners, then shoot at 2/3 stop slower than box speed as a starting point. That will get you in the ball park. If your shadow detail is not adequate, give more exposure, if your negatives are too dense, shadow detail is excessive and highlights start to block when you approach proper contrast, then give less exposure. Modern film has quite a lot of latitude, but you need to get the exposure between the goalposts of shadow detail and highlight shouldering at least. The negative you describe seems overexposed and underdeveloped.

Next, if you wish to use incident metering, do use it to find the overall contrast of the lighting ratio, and base your development time changes on that. You will need more development in scenes with less contrasty lighting and vice-versa.

I, too, believe that it is not necessary to have a densitometer or step wedges to dial in your system. So did Minor White and Richard Zakia. Look for a copy of "The New Zone System Manual" to find a description of how to calibrate your system using only your meter and the film and paper you usually print on.

And, for crying out loud, get rid of all the extraneous variables you can when you are trying to test something. Get your developer to temp, use a standard exposure, etc., etc.

Best,

Doremus

[Ironage]

OK, I printed the new negative and it looked only slightly better. Then I got smart and made my standard contact print. Yup, the picture was definitely over exposed.

I decided to try another picture on a good sunny day. Anyways, thanks guys. I will look into the suggested books.

[Robert Budding]

I'd suggest that you pay $50 and have the View Camera Store run your tests. Fred will expose 5 sheets of film for you. You develop each sheet at different times and send them back to him. He'll measure the densities and deliver the info back to you.

http://www.viewcamerastore.com/servl...est-4x5/Detail

[Ironage]

I'd suggest that you pay $50 and have the View Camera Store run your tests. Fred will expose 5 sheets of film for you. You develop each sheet at different times and send them back to him. He'll measure the densities and deliver the info back to you.

http://www.viewcamerastore.com/servl...est-4x5/Detail

Interesting service. I may have to try this.

[cosmicexplosion]

Looks like you got all the answers namely get a solid neg
Contact print and then do one variation at a time
Or in your way of thinking expose ten sheets at different intervals then try one variable for each neg

You could end up doing hundreds of negs

Or read what others have done then base
Your work on that

Throw away your incident Meter and use
A one degree spot meter if you want to control contrast from exposure

Me

I use spot meter and orange filters when contact printing
Gives me all the contrast I could care for

I am pretty sure unless you use colored gels
To print with your negs will be grey and washed out

I am still learning but I was getting woeful results
Till I used spot and gels

Now I am getting good results

I am happy

[premortho]

I tried, but I couldn't let this quote just sit there. I got great results from 1947 on by controling contrast through development. About 1955, I bought a used Weston Master ll reflected light meter. I bought it because that was what A. Adams developed the zone system around. Previously I either used the lens for an extinction meter, or sunny 11. Sunny 16 gives the minumum exposure for an acceptable print. Sunny sixteen came along later, after the standard was changed in 1960 which reduced exposure by 50%. And by that I mean a films' box speed was doubled overnight in 1960. This does'nt matter, as long as you understand why you are not getting adequite contrast. Another way of saying this is, if you shoot at box speed and a light meter value, you are only about one step or more away from underexposure. Now I don't know who's work you admire...for me it's Edward Weston, and a bunch of earlier photographers who never used a light meter. How could they get those beautiful pictures, beside artistic ability? That's where the old axiom 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' comes from.

Looks like you got all the answers namely get a solid neg
Contact print and then do one variation at a time
Or in your way of thinking expose ten sheets at different intervals then try one variable for each neg

You could end up doing hundreds of negs

Or read what others have done then base
Your work on that

Throw away your incident Meter and use
A one degree spot meter if you want to control contrast from exposure

Me

I use spot meter and orange filters when contact printing
Gives me all the contrast I could care for

I am pretty sure unless you use colored gels
To print with your negs will be grey and washed out

I am still learning but I was getting woeful results
Till I used spot and gels

Now I am getting good results

I am happy

[Ironage]

So you got the solution or what Ironage ??

Last weekend I contact printed all 5x7 negatives on grade 2 paper. They were all exposed for the same 13 seconds under my enlarger. It amounted to only 20 negatives shot over about 7 years on different films and developed with several different developers. They looked pretty good, but there were many more than this were dumped over the years.

They were all exposed at the recommended ASA and the recommended development time and temp.

Those which were shot under contrasty lighting look contrasty but natural. Those shot in soft lighting look natural as well, but of course lower contrast. I am not sure how necessary contrast control will be for my poor eyes trained to judge lighting before I even decide to take the picture. Roll film necessitates this skill.

[premortho]

Ironage, if you are getting good printable negs with whatever you are doing, why change? I'm a little surprised you get good neg quality at box speed, I don't, but if you do, more power to you. Light meters were a rarity when I started photography in 1947, I bought my first light meter in 1955, so I understand what you mean about your eyes judging lighting before you even decide to expose a film. What I don't like about roll film is that all the exposures have to be the same...and it takes so many pictorial oppertunities to finish a roll. That's why I prefer sheet film. Rarely do I ever expose 2 shots on any one photo excursion. If I do see another picture (pre-visualization is useful for me), I'll expose maybe another two. I develop the films at night, either at home, or in my pickup camper. The pick-up camper saves a lot of driving around.

Last weekend I contact printed all 5x7 negatives on grade 2 paper. They were all exposed for the same 13 seconds under my enlarger. It amounted to only 20 negatives shot over about 7 years on different films and developed with several different developers. They looked pretty good, but there were many more than this were dumped over the years.

They were all exposed at the recommended ASA and the recommended development time and temp.

Those which were shot under contrasty lighting look contrasty but natural. Those shot in soft lighting look natural as well, but of course lower contrast. I am not sure how necessary contrast control will be for my poor eyes trained to judge lighting before I even decide to take the picture. Roll film necessitates this skill.

[cosmicexplosion]

Sorry meant to say magenta filter in printing not orange