Need more contrast in my negs

[Dan Dozer]

So - I've been playing around with a lens that by all rights should have been thrown away long ago. It has big time (and I mean major) balsam separation that covers just about all the lens surface. I've been working with it for creative protrait type of work (I like trying to use weird lens elements for creative looks). Problem is that with the balsam separation (lens is fairly yellow from it) and the fact that this is a pretty old projection lens with no coating, the negs are coming out extremely low in contrast. The density of my normal negs is about 1.1 - 1.2 and those with this lens are coming out at about .25 - .3. Seems if I over expose the negs, I can get the density up to maybe .5, but the negative starts to get somewhat dense when I try that. With that range, I'm very limited on how I can get enough contrast with my prints.

I develop my negs (Ilford Delta 100 and HP5) in PMK Pyro and really don't have much recent experience with other developers out there.

So - I'm looking for ideas (other than N+ development) to get more contrast. Given all this, are there some film/developer types and/or combos that I might try that could give me more contrast than what I'm getting with my PMK Pyro developer? What about using colored filters when making the exposures (I don't even know what color might help with this). Would using pink filters help with portrait type of work since it could render the skin tones a little lighter?

[C. D. Keth]

Colored filtration depends entirely on the subject. Why are you opposed to increased development? That's really the best answer.

[polyglot]

Is the density 0.25 to 0.3 or is that the density range? If it's the highlight density, you're grossly under-exposing.

If the density range is contracted, you clearly need to develop for longer. If the negs become too dense, then reduce the exposure accordingly.

[Regular Rod]

So - I've been playing around with a lens that by all rights should have been thrown away long ago. It has big time (and I mean major) balsam separation that covers just about all the lens surface. I've been working with it for creative protrait type of work (I like trying to use weird lens elements for creative looks). Problem is that with the balsam separation (lens is fairly yellow from it) and the fact that this is a pretty old projection lens with no coating, the negs are coming out extremely low in contrast. The density of my normal negs is about 1.1 - 1.2 and those with this lens are coming out at about .25 - .3. Seems if I over expose the negs, I can get the density up to maybe .5, but the negative starts to get somewhat dense when I try that. With that range, I'm very limited on how I can get enough contrast with my prints.

I develop my negs (Ilford Delta 100 and HP5) in PMK Pyro and really don't have much recent experience with other developers out there.

So - I'm looking for ideas (other than N+ development) to get more contrast. Given all this, are there some film/developer types and/or combos that I might try that could give me more contrast than what I'm getting with my PMK Pyro developer? What about using colored filters when making the exposures (I don't even know what color might help with this). Would using pink filters help with portrait type of work since it could render the skin tones a little lighter?

Is there an iris or some other means of applying stops with this projector lens? Have you mounted it in a shutter with an iris for example? If not have you accurately assessed what the effective aperture is? Your developer should be just as good no matter what lens you have used. Exposure has to be the key. You must be under exposing. If the lens aperture is known but you can see that the balsam has yellowed, how about exposing as if you had a filter on? Try four exposures of the same subject and the same film stock increasing the exposures as you go. First at whatever you calculate to be the normal exposure, then at 1.5x, then 2x and finally 3x. Develop them all exactly as you would normally and decide which is best. Then use that factor in future.

RR

[ic-racer]

Film contrast is controlled with development time and temp. An increase in either will increase you contrast. Changing developers in this situation is like buying a new lens with a smaller aperture, rather than just moving the aperture lever on a lens already owned to control exposure.

[vinny]

Change your lighting ratio by using negative fill (black foam core) if using natural light.
Why are you opposed to increased development?

[Regular Rod]

Film contrast is controlled with development time and temp. An increase in either will increase you contrast. Changing developers in this situation is like buying a new lens with a smaller aperture, rather than just moving the aperture lever on a lens already owned to control exposure.

I read it that he uses Ilford Delta 100 and HP5 already with PMK Pyro. If he is satisfied with the contrast he has been getting with that combination but now with this lens he is not getting acceptable contrast, there is only one variable left to cause the lower contrast and that is exposure.

RR

[wclark5179]

May I suggest trying Ilford's Microphen developer.

You can purchase it here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/218773-REG/Ilford_1960518_Microphen_Developer_Powder_for.html

Hope this helps your contrast issues!

[DannL]

Since you need a lens where you can control the amount of diffusion that takes place, use a good lens and intentionally control the amount of diffusion. You can place any number of DIY filters in front of the lens and manipulate how the light scatters before it hits the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_filter

[ROL]

I really like all the responses so far. I'm not clear on why you're married to such an obviously inferior lens (for your purposes - like you said, throw it away). It's hard to imagine Pyro can't get you as much of what you're looking for as any developer. Try it 1:1. Try Rodinal 1:25. Or try the old standby of selenium toner to boost contrast with your present crop of negatives. Use high contrast printing papers or papers that have "gone off". There are so many options to experiment with.

[Dan Dozer]

I think some of you are missing the point I'm trying to make here. The total density variance in the negative is only .25 from the thinnest parts to the densest parts, and I believe that is being caused by the combination of the lack of coating on the lens and the balsam separation. I have no problem with increasing development (or changing exposure) which will theoretically darken the darks in the negative, but because the density range is so small, it's not having nearly the affect that I was expecting.

Telling me to use another lens is not the answer. Note that the lens does not have an iris. I have plenty of other lenses that I regularly use. This is one that I'm curious to get to try to work because it has a rather unique look to it and right now, the only real answer I have is to print with #5 filters and see if I can get enough of a tonal range to satisfy myself.

Chris - I agree with you that filtration might be a possible solution that I'm going to try more of.

Vinny - good to hear from you. Lighting control might also be a good solution and I'll consider that also.

I'll also try some significantly increased development times (and possibly adjusting exposure), but if my development times get upwards of 20 minutes or more, I'm not that interested in pursuing this approach.

I'm going to keep playing with it and see if I can come up with something.

Any other ideas?

[Jim Galli]

If you mix your own PMK, why not buy some Catechol and mix up some PyroCat HD. I never liked HP5 much at all until I souped some in the Pcat. Never looked back.

[Leigh]

The total density variance in the negative is only .25 from the thinnest parts to the densest parts, and I believe that is being caused by the combination of the lack of coating on the lens and the balsam separation.
The negative is severely under-exposed or severely under-developed.

The problem is not separation or lack of coating. Those may affect image quality, but not Dmax.

I suppose balsamic separation could have an effect similar to a neutral-density filter, but not dense enough to cause your problem.

- Leigh

[Michael E]

I have no problem with increasing development (or changing exposure) which will theoretically darken the darks in the negative, but because the density range is so small, it's not having nearly the affect that I was expecting.

As the old rule goes, expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. You don't want to raise the density of your negs in general, you want to keep the shadows nice and clear and just strengthen the highlights. In your case, you should probably underexpose and turn up development big time. You don't have to increase time, you can also work with dilution, agitation, and/or temperature. You can also try paper developer or lith film.

Michael

[polyglot]

The total density variance in the negative is only .25 from the thinnest parts to the densest parts, and I believe that is being caused by the combination of the lack of coating on the lens and the balsam separation.

The separation may well be the cause, but the solution is increased development. If your densities are currently 0.05 to 0.30 then a simple development increase will probably be OK. If you're currently around 0.8 to 1.05 then you will need to reduce exposure in order to not have the image all up on the shoulder of the film (1.6 to 2.1ish) after you've increased the development. If the image is all shouldered, that too will hurt your contrast.

[Regular Rod]

...Any other ideas?


Yes, have you tried the test exposures yet that I suggested in post 4 of your thread? http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?105371-Need-more-contrast-in-my-negs&p=1047520&viewfull=1#post1047520

RR

[chuck461]

I've never used one myself, but many will tell you that using a Compendium Shade will increase contrast by reducing internal reflections. There are many threads on this. Have a look at this one: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?8446-When-is-a-compendium-shade-better-than-my-hat&highlight=compendium.
Chuck

[Leigh]

...many will tell you that using a Compendium Shade will increase contrast by reducing internal reflections.
That's true, but the difference is only fractions of a stop unless the sun is actually hitting the front element of the lens.

- Leigh

[Vaughn]

That's true, but the difference is only fractions of a stop unless the sun is actually hitting the front element of the lens.

- Leigh

From what I understand, flare can also happen in scenes of diffused light that hit the lens from many different angles...not just direct light hitting the lens.

[Leigh]

From what I understand, flare can also happen in scenes of diffused light that hit the lens from many different angles...not just direct light hitting the lens.
Yes. However, a compendium shade (or any other type) is totally useless for attenuating light coming from the subject, within the field of view.

- Leigh