Pushing and Pulling effect on tone curve?

[ryanmills]

Jock Sturges work was one of my big reasons for switch to large format last year. There is a tone and texture that I feel just cant be done in digital. After shooting for a year I feel like i'm getting close but the soft shadows and tone still elude me. I found a post and he said the following.


What lets me get away with meterlessness in b&w is the simple fact that I overexpose between two and three stops and then underdevelop pretty radically. So now matter how much I have overexposed highlights they never have time to develop unprintable density. Annnnd, that gives me lovely shadow detail. Old trick really and I'd be surprised if most of you don't already know all about this.

In my head it sounds like he just pushes the film but my experience is that pushing increases contrast. So re-reading it I wondered if I mis-understood. But even if you overexpose, why would under developing leave you with the same shadow detail, in my head they should be under exposed as well.

So am i understanding this correctly. I know he does not use a meter but lets assume he shoots ISO 100 film at 400, am i understanding that he is basing his development time on ISO 800 or higher?

Learning on digital originally, the switch to film has been learn as I go and I feel like im missing something basic here. Thoughts?

[Drew Wiley]

That's called shooting from the hip.... which is often synonymous with shooting yourself in the foot... or in the case of large format film, unnecessarily shooting holes in your wallet. Some films will let you be sloppier than others, but achieving rich tonality has exactly zero to do with guessing exposures. Buy a light meter.

[marfa boomboom tx]

Jock Sturges work was one of my big reasons for switch to large format last year. There is a tone and texture that I feel just cant be done in digital. After shooting for a year I feel like i'm getting close but the soft shadows and tone still elude me. I found a post and he said the following.



In my head it sounds like he just pushes the film but my experience is that pushing increases contrast. So re-reading it I wondered if I mis-understood. But even if you overexpose, why would under developing leave you with the same shadow detail, in my head they should be under exposed as well.

So am i understanding this correctly. I know he does not use a meter but lets assume he shoots ISO 100 film at 400, am i understanding that he is basing his development time on ISO 800 or higher?

Learning on digital originally, the switch to film has been learn as I go and I feel like im missing something basic here. Thoughts?

wrong direction of X
he makes dense, flat negatives …. linda connor (sfai teacher since 69) worked with POP, which was very forgiving of exposure. search sturges alma matter

LC (and many others) use the newspaper method: can you read a newspaper through the negative? In her case (ca '71) the answer was definitely no.
try the method.
can you read through the negative?
Yes --- punch the exposure (increase)
can you make a contact print on low contrast grade?
Yes --- good to go
No --- change development time

[ryanmills]

That's called shooting from the hip.... which is often synonymous with shooting yourself in the foot... or in the case of large format film, unnecessarily shooting holes in your wallet. Some films will let you be sloppier than others, but achieving rich tonality has exactly zero to do with guessing exposures. Buy a light meter.

I will be sure to tell the master photographer that next time I see him, i'm sure after 30+ years of shooting he had no idea.

[bob carnie]

I have seen a lot of Jock Sturges prints and I think his prints are world class, to me his description makes perfect sense.
He is looking for beautiful shadow detail , with a hint of black, and long on highlight detail. This gives a very soft looking print.

I have clients who have asked for this type of print, and to mimic his print style I advise the photographer to overexpose heavily and under process to suit highlight detail.

This is often done with Trix and PMK , which team up very well.

I am a huge fan of his printing skills.

[ryanmills]

wrong direction of X
he makes dense, flat negatives …. linda connor (sfai teacher since 69) worked with POP, which was very forgiving of exposure. search sturges alma matter

LC (and many others) use the newspaper method: can you read a newspaper through the negative? In her case (ca '71) the answer was definitely no.
try the method.
can you read through the negative?
Yes --- punch the exposure (increase)
can you make a contact print on low contrast grade?
Yes --- good to go
No --- change development time

That's very interesting, So when you say X are you saying if he shoots ISO 100 film at 400, he is developing for 100 or less? How would this differ from just overexposing X number of stops and developing normally? Or is that exactly what he is doing? What part is limiting the highlights? I always meter my shadows and push things up so I tend to overexpose but I don't understand how you limit the highlight density.

I recently got the New Work 96-2000 book and could see signs they negs were thick in the highlights and that's why I started wondering. I tried this early on and found that they just cant be scanned that thick and after I found a really ideal scanning density but its not the same. I'm working with an enlarger now and im going to have to tinker more.

What I have never quite gotten right was shooting in the sun like he does sometimes, i can get it near perfect in the shade where I have lower contrast. But keeping both highlights and shadows close enough to print without massive burning and dodging eludes me in the sun. Pointers other than use a meter are welcome.

[ryanmills]

I have seen a lot of Jock Sturges prints and I think his prints are world class, to me his description makes perfect sense.
He is looking for beautiful shadow detail , with a hint of black, and long on highlight detail. This gives a very soft looking print.

I have clients who have asked for this type of print, and to mimic his print style I advise the photographer to overexpose heavily and under process to suit highlight detail.

This is often done with Trix and PMK , which team up very well.

I am a huge fan of his printing skills.

Your comment "hint of black" was exactly what I noticed, he never really prints for a true black most of the time. Its something I just felt like it had to be there when do my own and feel I need to look at that again. Im just missing how he keeps his highlights down during the development process. There is a shot of Misty Dawn on a dock standing backwards that is clearly overexposed a lot, so much I dont think I would have published it personally. So there is a range, just wish I knew it.

I know for a fact up until the rolli project it was tri-x pro with hc-110. It was not the 320 pro but I still get really close using it and a slightly tweaked dilution (1:38 for 6:30 at 68 degrees). He shoots mostly digital right now but was shooting tmax for the rolli project and loved it. I got some tmax 100 and 400 to tinker with using the double dilution, wondering if that might help keep the contrast lighter without pushing the film so far.

[mdarnton]

Ryan, you aren't getting a clear answer yet. You have pushing and pulling confused.

Pushing is shooting 400 film at 1600, which underexposes it, and developing more to make up for the underexposure (which is something a lot of people do that technically does not work, but this isn't the place to discuss that). Pulling is exposing 400 film at 100 and developing less so that the film does not get too dark. In the context being discussed, this has the specific effect of drawing the overexposed bright areas down into a more printable range without affecting the shadows.

From what you are saying, Sturgis overexposes and underdevelops. This leads to flat (less contrasty) negatives, which makes sense in the context of what you are saying.

[Ken Lee]

If we use a film that really is ISO 400 and expose it as if it were 100, then all things being equal we over-expose by 2 stops.

If we then give the film N-2 development, we contract the high values that were just placed 2 stops too high, back down by 2 stops.

That's likely what is meant by over exposing and under developing. The tone curve gets less steep. We have compressed the contrast range.

Compared to the "soot and chalk" appearance of many b&w photos, a competently exposed, developed and printed negative will often look remarkable. It has less to do with format size, than with competent technique. The same principles apply whether we shoot small film or large film.

[bob carnie]

Plus one

When he prints or has prints made they are on what I call the soft side and the black is there but not dominant.

You need this long scale negative to get this look. Ken describes the process very well.




If we use a film that really is ISO 400 and expose it as if it were 100, then all things being equal we over-expose by 2 stops.

If we then give the film N-2 development, we contract the high values that were just placed 2 stops too high, back down by 2 stops.

That's likely what is meant by over exposing and under developing.

Compared to the "soot and chalk" appearance of many b&w photos, a competently exposed, developed and printed negative will often look remarkable. It has less to do with format size, than with competent technique. The same principles apply whether we shoot small film or large film.

[sanking]

Your comment "hint of black" was exactly what I noticed, he never really prints for a true black most of the time. Its something I just felt like it had to be there when do my own and feel I need to look at that again. Im just missing how he keeps his highlights down during the development process.


Shadow detail and negative contrast are to some extent dependent, but the primary factor in shadow detail is exposure, the primary factor in negative contrast is development. Do as Bob Carnie suggested, overexpose two or three stops, and develop the film for a shorter than normal time (or use a weaker dilution developer, or use some form of stand development, or use a two-bath developer).

Getting the look you are after is more a matter of process than of specific materials. TRI-X and PMK might work for some, others would get what they want with Puke-a-Pan and D-FartyOne

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Ryan ... because someone has an effective method for doing something based upon years of experience and memory doesn't mean you're going to be able to
fast-track the same thing. And no .. I'm not intimidated by the name of anyone in this business, so don't try that bluff with me. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are a lot easier than others, and nearly all of them involve a light meter. One distinct problem is that printing papers are changing, and what once worked might not work so well anymore. So there's an argument to making a versatile negative rather than one which straight-jackets you into just one method of printing. Thick neg technique with Tri-X was once popular, and there are still a few notable practitioners of it. But it comes with a substantial penalty, and in most cases, does not in fact make life any easier. It seems to be a holdover from contact printing long-scale Azo. But no sense explaining the details here. But yeah, you've got it all backwards anyway. Need to learn basic film technique first.

[bob carnie]

Jock Sturges prints influenced many photographers in the 90's as well as printers like myself who were asked to print in various styles.

If I had to describe his prints I would say they are very open prints, with and emphasis on of detail completely throughout the scene with out any real printer adjustment other than to make sure there is slight detail in the highlights and a hint of black. Geoffrey James, Steve Evans both excellent photographers would emulate this style in their landscape and architecture work.

I believe that Mr Sturges prints would be considered at one end of the silver print spectrum , and David Baileys prints at the other.

To get either result requires a different approach , that is IMO the basis of the Zone System or the ability of pushing tones around.

BTW I love both methods, but am really partial to Brett Weston prints where he has a bit of a f... the shadow detail and give me bold bold highlights, printing style.

This is what is so great about print making, the ability to play with light, film choice , developer choices, times, paper chems tones... its an endless lifetime of print making.

[ryanmills]

Ryan ... because someone has an effective method for doing something based upon years of experience and memory doesn't mean you're going to be able to
fast-track the same thing. And no .. I'm not intimidated by the name of anyone in this business, so don't try that bluff with me. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are a lot easier than others, and nearly all of them involve a light meter. One distinct problem is that printing papers are changing, and what once worked might not work so well anymore. So there's an argument to making a versatile negative rather than one which straight-jackets you into just one method of printing. Thick neg technique with Tri-X was once popular, and there are still a few notable practitioners of it. But it comes with a substantial penalty, and in most cases, does not in fact make life any easier. It seems to be a holdover from contact printing long-scale Azo. But no sense explaining the details here. But yeah, you've got it all backwards anyway. Need to learn basic film technique first.

Sigh... there is always that one guy... Offers nothing but "dont even try it" or "your not good enough" without a single bit of useful information. Goes on to insult the photographer who quite frankly makes your work look like 4 yearolds finger painting then comes back with this garbage trying to sound educated. Why would i even begin to respect your opinion after that. Better yet keep that in mind the next time you bother to post this useless dribble that's hard to hear through the jealousy of knowing you will never make it like he did.

Learning how your betters got results makes you a better photographer, maybe I cant get it exact but understanding it is important and quite frankly your a wasting your time trying to insult my ability's. Frankly my darling, I dont give a damn.

[Drew Wiley]

Ironically, I'd pick one of the TMax sheet films for either style today, Bob. To get that BW look, I'd underexpose and overdevelop it, to let the deep shadows drop
hard and expand the midtones - Of course it would help to have some Seagull G and amidol on hand, with full development. But I could take that same film exposure strategy and print a very soft long-scale portrait by snatch developing a silver-rich paper and carefully toning it, which I happened to prefer the old graded Brilliant for, back in its day. I doubt that even many photographers would recognize the similarity unless they saw the original negs. The profound difference in look was all
in the printing. But a distinct procedural "flaw" from the norm in exposure and dev was also involved in each case. New materials. New ways.

[ryanmills]

If we use a film that really is ISO 400 and expose it as if it were 100, then all things being equal we over-expose by 2 stops.

If we then give the film N-2 development, we contract the high values that were just placed 2 stops too high, back down by 2 stops.

That's likely what is meant by over exposing and under developing. The tone curve gets less steep. We have compressed the contrast range.

Compared to the "soot and chalk" appearance of many b&w photos, a competently exposed, developed and printed negative will often look remarkable. It has less to do with format size, than with competent technique. The same principles apply whether we shoot small film or large film.

Thanks Ken, I did not explain myself well in the first round. I meant to ask if he was simply pushing or pulling the film. I get both of those. The question is if he is not pushing or pull, what would be be doing and how is it effecting the negative. I think your following what I was looking for however N-2, its the math im missing. I dont know the zone system well if that's a reference to it. For portrait work its just never made sense for me, questioning that now. I'm confused how what you described is any different than pushing/pulling film. If you over expose then under develop don't you end up at the same spot. How would it be different that metering and pushing everything 2 stops. So 100 ISO film @400.

[jp]

Ryan; any advice here comes with some personality.

Drew is essentially saying there are printing challenges inherent to a solution. I'd take it as a challenge rather than a discouragement.

I've done some thick tmy2 negs which capture a scale well beyond what I can print in the darkroom (such as with the sun in the photo not getting blown out) with my enlarger and MG paper. I can scan them successfully though; another way to skin a cat.

[ryanmills]

Ryan; any advice here comes with some personality.

Drew is essentially saying there are printing challenges inherent to a solution. I'd take it as a challenge rather than a discouragement.

I've done some thick tmy2 negs which capture a scale well beyond what I can print in the darkroom (such as with the sun in the photo not getting blown out) with my enlarger and MG paper. I can scan them successfully though; another way to skin a cat.

Lol your reading into his comment "That's called shooting from the hip.... which is often synonymous with shooting yourself in the foot... or in the case of large format film, unnecessarily shooting holes in your wallet. Some films will let you be sloppier than others, but achieving rich tonality has exactly zero to do with guessing exposures. Buy a light meter." a bit too much... he is just a troll, gets called on it and suddenly wants to look less foolish. He can say whatever he likes to save face, respect or care for that matter was lost on the first comment.

I'm just missing a developing concept and trying to understand it better, its just hard to articulate it correctly. If I push film I get more contrast, how do I limit that to get the effect. Maybe that's the simplest way to put it.

[bob carnie]

Ryan

Ken is describing a classic over exposing under developing scenario that is relevant to this discussion.
This allows for great shadow and low end detail and excellent highlight detail.
And no you do not end at the same spot.

google Kodak black and white ring around... you will see great examples


Pushing and pulling more are terms relevant to transparency work.

You would push the development of a clip test if the image was too dark
You would pull the development of a clip test if the image was too dark.






Thanks Ken, I did not explain myself well in the first round. I meant to ask if he was simply pushing or pulling the film. I get both of those. The question is if he is not pushing or pull, what would be be doing and how is it effecting the negative. I think your following what I was looking for however N-2, its the math im missing. I dont know the zone system well if that's a reference to it. For portrait work its just never made sense for me, questioning that now. I'm confused how what you described is any different than pushing/pulling film. If you over expose then under develop don't you end up at the same spot. How would it be different that metering and pushing everything 2 stops. So 100 ISO film @400.

[bob carnie]

BTW Ryan , I cannot over emphasis the Ring Around Concept. If you do this with your own work it will help you immensely.

even go farther and do the ring around with different lighting ratios..

I think this is the most helpful tests one could do to see how this tonality thing works with black and white.

[bob carnie]

Drew

Jock Sturges prints have incredible shadow detail, I am not sure underexposing over developing is the way I would go, in fact quite the opposite.

Bob



Ironically, I'd pick one of the TMax sheet films for either style today, Bob. To get that BW look, I'd underexpose and overdevelop it, to let the deep shadows drop
hard and expand the midtones - Of course it would help to have some Seagull G and amidol on hand, with full developme
nt. But I could take that same film exposure strategy and print a very soft long-scale portrait by snatch developing a silver-rich paper and carefully toning it, which I happened to prefer the old graded Brilliant for, back in its day. I doubt that even many photographers would recognize the similarity unless they saw the original negs. The profound difference in look was all
in the printing. But a distinct procedural "flaw" from the norm in exposure and dev was also involved in each case. New materials. New ways.

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed. I'm not trying to discourage you at all, Ryan. But I do know how to achieve the effect you are seeking with current materials, and I am being completely honest (not jealous) when I state that I am not intimidated by anyone's reputation. A number of people on this forum can really print, even if they aren't household
names. You need to get to first base before you can get to second or third. And you're going to get there a lot, lot faster with good light meter technique. It can
be a lot of fun, but will take some distinct experience, esp in the printing aspect. Lots of the newer papers just don't behave like the old ones, so consequently might need a revision of film technique itself.

[ryanmills]

Ryan

Ken is describing a classic over exposing under developing scenario that is relevant to this discussion.
This allows for great shadow and low end detail and excellent highlight detail.
And no you do not end at the same spot.

google Kodak black and white ring around... you will see great examples


Pushing and pulling more are terms relevant to transparency work.

You would push the development of a clip test if the image was too dark
You would pull the development of a clip test if the image was too dark.

Quick google check is not showing a lot but I will keep looking. I just want to be clear, lets say I shoot a 100 ISO film but set my meter for 400 and develop for ISO 400 is that not pushing it 2 stops? And again to be clear, thats not what jock is doing.

Maybe its the math im missing. Lets say im shooting a 100 ISO film I take my middle gray and over expose 3 stops. Using the method jock did what am I basing my develop time on? Is it not just using the time for 800 or do I go under and use 400? If its not how would I find my time or whats it based on. I did not follow the N-2 reference, what would N be?

[frotog]

If the shadows are eluding you, as you say, then you are not exposing enough. But as it's already been said, in order to hold onto the highlights you're going to need to compress the tonal scale. Traditionally this can be done in two different ways - either cut back on overall developing time (pulling the development), as it has already been noted here, or look into stand and semi-stand developing. Highlights are held back due to developer activity exhausting quickly in the more exposed portions of the neg while shadow development goes on and on and on….until gamma infinity. Even if you don't choose gamma infinity style development, you'd be wise to keep your agitation cycle as gentle and minimal as the film/dev combo will allow so as to keep the highlight density down. Robert Adams, Emmet Gowin, and Sally Mann have a similar technique of achieving open shadows whether it be stand dev. or the use of water baths and developing by inspection. You might find this article helpful in this regard… http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html

And contrary to what has been said here, a flat neg. is an eminently printable neg as it has no real constraints (i.e. blocked-up shadows or highlights), thereby affording the printer tremendous latitude in its interpretation. For example, notice how often Sturges will print a negative down to a desired black yet still keep all the micro-tonality in the skin tones - all that shadow detail is there to do whatever he wants with so long as the highlights are not blocked up. Plus, bonus, flat negs scan better.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob, remember that Tmax will dig fully two stops deeper than most popular films, in terms of resolving shadow gradation, IF the metering is dead on. But I doubt that's how Sturges did it anyway, because he probably wasn't generally working with that harsh a luminance scale. I personally liked to use Ari fresnels, old-school,
but when the printing was done, you'd never guess it, because the gradation was so subtle. All in the printing.

[frotog]

Not everything he shoots is at magic hour…

http://lamodelamour.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mariacarlabosconon-jock-sturges11.jpg

http://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Butterfields/78/105878/H0078-L00418037.jpg

Huge brightness range in these two shots. Again, metering for the highlights on the skin and compressing the tonal scale in development. And since he's always making pictures of pre-pubescent, lily-white nudes in mostly magic hour lighting, I'm not surprised he finds no need for the light meter. There's a reason DP's sometimes refer to it as "stupid hour" ;)

[bob carnie]

Ryan ,

No , in the scenario you describe you are underexposing your film , I think you need to get rid of the term PUSH for right now.

When you need a negative with strong contrast and you are not concerned with great shadow detail you would double the rated film speed and then process accordingly.
I printed for the wonderful ballet photographer Catherine Ashmore and her method was to take HPF and rate it at 800 and then process in microphen at an extended time.

This allowed her camera speed , and was willing to suffer a bit of shadow detail. Most theatrical and sports photographers require this method.

For lith printing a strong negative is required, and Trix would be exposed at 1600 and processed in HC110 for a longer time. Anton Corjbin and Mike Spry his printer pretty much wrote the book on this one..

PUSH - is a term we lab rats would use more for the process time and is not in reference to the ISO.
In both these cases the photographer would extend the ISO for camera speed and would PUSH **extend** the development time to bring the film back.



Verbally it is hard to describe and I may not be doing justice to the conversation.

If I can find some info on Kodak Ring Arounds for Black and White I will post or maybe some kind soul here will do so. As once you see it
you should get it.

Bob



Quick google check is not showing a lot but I will keep looking. I just want to be clear, lets say I shoot a 100 ISO film but set my meter for 400 and develop for ISO 400 is that not pushing it 2 stops? And again to be clear, thats not what jock is doing.

Maybe its the math im missing. Lets say im shooting a 100 ISO film I take my middle gray and over expose 3 stops. Using the method jock did what am I basing my develop time on? Is it not just using the time for 800 or do I go under and use 400? If its not how would I find my time or whats it based on. I did not follow the N-2 reference, what would N be?

[ryanmills]

Not everything he shoots is at magic hour…

http://lamodelamour.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mariacarlabosconon-jock-sturges11.jpg

http://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Butterfields/78/105878/H0078-L00418037.jpg

Huge brightness range in these two shots. Again, metering for the highlights on the skin and compressing the tonal scale in development. And since he's always making pictures of pre-pubescent, lily-white nudes in mostly magic hour lighting, I'm not surprised he finds no need for the light meter. There's a reason DP's sometimes refer to it as "stupid hour" ;)

Those photos are the excat reason im asking but I did not want to bother with too long of a back story. I can shoot just fine in the shadows, nice window lights, and i have gotten good at finding the nice subtle light and know exactly what I need for good shadow detail and I get perfect results using both tri-x 320 and tmax at box speed. But after looking at his book I see him getting far better results in very harsh lighting. Knowing how to better control that would be quite valuable to me and he is a rather well know photog and a good example, hence the reason for me asking what he meant by his comment. I tend to shoot tri-x 400 at 1600 and higher because i hate the results in any lighting at box speed. Doing that adds a lot of contrast. Thats why I was so confused by his comment. I'm not understanding something correctly in how the developing process effects the negative. Maybe i'm thinking of it too linerly. Those shots look to have to have a 6+ stop range, that second shot with the younger girl show it perfectly, detail still on both arms.

A practical example of reproducing that should would be quite helpful. If i was going to try I would meter the shadows, drop 1 maybe 2 stops and shoot that and develop normally. Maybe guess would be dead black negs on the harsh side of her body and little to no detail. I know agitation effects this, jock does 16-20 8x10's at a time and I know a person could only do that so fast so lower agitation rate, but how do I find or know what time to develop for? Do I need to meter differently?

[ryanmills]

Ryan ,

No , in the scenario you describe you are underexposing your film , I think you need to get rid of the term PUSH for right now.

When you need a negative with strong contrast and you are not concerned with great shadow detail you would double the rated film speed and then process accordingly.
I printed for the wonderful ballet photographer Catherine Ashmore and her method was to take HPF and rate it at 800 and then process in microphen at an extended time.

This allowed her camera speed , and was willing to suffer a bit of shadow detail. Most theatrical and sports photographers require this method.

For lith printing a strong negative is required, and Trix would be exposed at 1600 and processed in HC110 for a longer time. Anton Corjbin and Mike Spry his printer pretty much wrote the book on this one..

PUSH - is a term we lab rats would use more for the process time and is not in reference to the ISO.
In both these cases the photographer would extend the ISO for camera speed and would PUSH **extend** the development time to bring the film back.



Verbally it is hard to describe and I may not be doing justice to the conversation.

If I can find some info on Kodak Ring Arounds for Black and White I will post or maybe some kind soul here will do so. As once you see it
you should get it.

Bob

Ok, im following that, I guess its finding the development time without doing clip tests that im missing. So far google is letting me down.

[Oren Grad]

I tend to shoot tri-x 400 at 1600 and higher because i hate the results in any lighting at box speed.

If you are truly exposing TXP at 1600 - it's hard to know without understanding your metering technique - then you are grossly underexposing the film, making life very difficult for yourself.

To a first approximation, for a given scene, exposure controls shadow detail, while development controls contrast. If you do not have enough detail in the shadows you need to give more exposure. Once you are giving enough exposure, you can adjust development to get an overall density range (contrast) that will print comfortably on the papers you want to use.

For now, forget the terms "push" and "pull". Also forget anything you may have heard about the zone system, N+/N- development, anything of the sort. It is plainly confusing you.

Get a copy of either of David Vestal's books - The Craft of Photography or The Art of Black-and-White Enlarging. If you get Craft, then read chapter 9 and do the exercise described in it. If you get Art, read chapter 3 and do the exercise described in that. When you have finished, you will understand how your film behaves, and you will be able to answer your own question.

[Ken Lee]

i hate the results in any lighting at box speed. Doing that adds a lot of contrast. Thats why I was so confused by his comment. I'm not understanding something correctly in how the developing process effects the negative. Maybe i'm thinking of it too linerly.

In spite of our best intentions, without a better grasp of the fundamentals we often end up going in circles.

I second what Oren said :cool:

[Drew Wiley]

Those linked images certainly don't seem to have extreme lighting ratios, just garden-variety full-range that any number of films would easily accommodate. All I was implying is how different films might require very different strategies to get a similar result. With Tri-X, people tend to overexpose the film to get all that shadow gradation well up onto the straight line part of the curve, and then develop for a thick negative to get good midtone expansion; but that can create some printing difficulty. With TMax films, with their steeper toe, expansion can be accomplished without overexposure, though you have to be much more careful where your deep shadows are placed, meter-wise. Minus development or compensating development will certainly squeeze the sandwich of the entire range, but at significant expense to the tonal expansion in the mids and highs. So you end up with salvage alternatives like masking (an supplementary skill), or scanning and curve reconfiguration, or things like snatch development, which doesn't work very well with most current papers (not to be confused with lith printing), and of course, contact printing. But now VC papers are edging into that realm, due to recent improvements, but still might not flawlessly bridge the whole scale. But the
same general result could probably be replicated any number of ways.

[Darin Boville]

Jock Sturges work was one of my big reasons for switch to large format last year. There is a tone and texture that I feel just cant be done in digital. After shooting for a year I feel like i'm getting close but the soft shadows and tone still elude me. I found a post and he said the following.

In my head it sounds like he just pushes the film but my experience is that pushing increases contrast. So re-reading it I wondered if I mis-understood. But even if you overexpose, why would under developing leave you with the same shadow detail, in my head they should be under exposed as well.

So am i understanding this correctly. I know he does not use a meter but lets assume he shoots ISO 100 film at 400, am i understanding that he is basing his development time on ISO 800 or higher?

Learning on digital originally, the switch to film has been learn as I go and I feel like im missing something basic here. Thoughts?

I'll have a go at this (why not?)--hopefully I understand your question.

What Sturges says he is doing is overexposing and under-developing. Fine. Here's why:

If you normally shoot film at ISO 400 you would in this case add two stops. Normally you don't use the terminology "shoot at ISO 100" or anything like that. That probably comes from having to set the ASA dial on old 35mm cameras. In any event, you are adding more exposure to the negative--adding more density to the clear-ish parts (the shadows) and adding more density to the dark parts (the highlights). So far pretty obvious.

Somewhere in this next part I think you are confusing yourself.

When you put the film in the developer the clear-ish parts develop fairly rapidly. Although you can fine tune things the basic idea is that the shadows develop right away and then are done developing, even though they continue to sit in the developer.

The dense part of the negative, the highlights, however are very touchy about how long they stay in the developer. Leave the negative in short time and they will be less dense than if you leave the negative a long time. Since the shadow areas aren't changing but the highlights are, development time is used to control how much contrast there is in the negative. Sort of like in Photoshop--you can set the shadow point of an image and change only the highlight point--a steep curve is higher contrast, a less steep curve is lower contrast. Less development is a shallow curve, more development is a steep curve. Shadow point stays the same, highlight point changes with development, thus changing the contrast curve.

So Sturges wants ample shadow detail so he makes sure he exposes the neg more than normally called for to be sure he gets it. He's guessing at the exposure, after all. Common thing to do with negative film which is somewhat forgiving of exposure.

A second reason he overexposes is that with film, in the shadows, you are in the "toe" of the contrast curve. It's an "s-curve, just what is done in Photoshop. Since the slope of the toe is shallow, that part of the exposure--the deep shadows--are lower contrast than the part of the curve higher up. So to get those areas higher on the curve so they are in the straight line (higher contrast) section you just increase exposure. Two stops will do it, just like what Sturges does. Yes your black is no longer black but you just have to print a bit longer to correct for that, to bring it back down in the print. No big deal.

So now we are exposing more than normal to get good shadow detail (exposing more because 1-we are guessing at the exposure and need some wiggle room, 2-we want the shadows to fall on the straight line section of the film's contrast curve so there is greater contrast in that area, greater detail in the shadows). But now we've caused a problem. By giving so much exposure we're put the high values too high. They may be simply too high--too much contrast compared to the deep shadows or they may have entered the "shoulder" of the contrast curve--the top of the s-curve--where it is starting to flatten out. Again, less contrast in this area.

To solve this we simply develop less--remember that developing time affects the highlight areas far more than it does the shadow areas. So you develop less to bring the highlights back down to where they should be, to correct them for your over-exposure of the whole scene (which you did in an effort to get more shadow detail).

Quite easy to do and not only good for shooting in the same basic lighting, like Sturges, but good for any time you don't have a meter or need to guess at the exposure in black and white. Overexpose to get good shadow detail, underdevelop to correct for the over-expsoure of the highlight areas.

--Darin

P.S. And don't forget, you can adjust contrast after the fact in the printing stage with different contrast grades of papers. many photographers will purposely exposes and develop for a "flat" negative (like Sturges seems to say he is doing) just so they can use a high contrast paper to "correct" for the flatness. It gives a different look than doing it the regular ay, despite what you might think.

[frotog]

Those photos are the excat reason im asking but I did not want to bother with too long of a back story. I can shoot just fine in the shadows, nice window lights, and i have gotten good at finding the nice subtle light and know exactly what I need for good shadow detail and I get perfect results using both tri-x 320 and tmax at box speed. But after looking at his book I see him getting far better results in very harsh lighting. Knowing how to better control that would be quite valuable to me and he is a rather well know photog and a good example, hence the reason for me asking what he meant by his comment. I tend to shoot tri-x 400 at 1600 and higher because i hate the results in any lighting at box speed. Doing that adds a lot of contrast. Thats why I was so confused by his comment. I'm not understanding something correctly in how the developing process effects the negative. Maybe i'm thinking of it too linerly. Those shots look to have to have a 6+ stop range, that second shot with the younger girl show it perfectly, detail still on both arms.

A practical example of reproducing that should would be quite helpful. If i was going to try I would meter the shadows, drop 1 maybe 2 stops and shoot that and develop normally. Maybe guess would be dead black negs on the harsh side of her body and little to no detail. I know agitation effects this, jock does 16-20 8x10's at a time and I know a person could only do that so fast so lower agitation rate, but how do I find or know what time to develop for? Do I need to meter differently?


He's most certainly developing by stand technique or with reduced agitation. Not just with these shots with a long brightness range but with the compositions shot in open shade as well. My guess is that you're right in your assumption that this is how he gets away with doing 16-20 sheets at a time as the extended time in a weaker developing solution makes the time that it takes to get all those negs in and out of solution insignificant. Also, notice that in the shot with the two teenage girls that I linked to you can see some mottling in the afternoon sky - an undesirable artifact of stand, reduced agitation or short development times. This blemish hardly interferes with the success of the image however - you only really notice it when you observe the image through those dreaded photo-geek glasses that technique snobs prefer.

If you want to proceed along these lines and by-pass all the photo technique books (and some of the misinformation on this forum) then try this experiment - use an incident meter at the subject pointed directly back at the lens of your camera, expose several sheets of film of the same subject (preferably a lily-white 'tweener with few inhibitions) two stops slower then box speed (tri-x 400 at 100asa). Then try developing the first sheet with a reduced agitation scheme (like very gentle agitation once every minute) at your standard time. Do the next sheet the same exact way but with 15% less time. And then try the third sheet at 30% less time. Make the best prints you can from each neg and then compare the prints. This will give you an empirical understanding of what Mr. Sturges means in the quote you referenced in the OP. Call it what you will - pulling the development, N-1, N-2…does not matter; the effects are the same - you are overexposing and under-developing the film in order to have rich, fully developed shadows and manageable, unblocked highlights. You will likely have to increase your contrast on the print for the negs that were developed less in order to get the black you want because they'll get flatter and flatter in contrast with less development. Or, like many of Sturges' prints, you could make the print heavier (including the two I linked to) until you get the highlight detail you'd like to see.

Capische?

[ryanmills]

I'll have a go at this (why not?)--hopefully I understand your question.

What Sturges says he is doing is overexposing and under-developing. Fine. Here's why:

If you normally shoot film at ISO 400 you would in this case add two stops. Normally you don't use the terminology "shoot at ISO 100" or anything like that. That probably comes from having to set the ASA dial on old 35mm cameras. In any event, you are adding more exposure to the negative--adding more density to the clear-ish parts (the shadows) and adding more density to the dark parts (the highlights). So far pretty obvious.



He's most certainly developing by stand technique or with reduced agitation. Not just with these shots with a long brightness range but with the compositions shot in open shade as well. My guess is that you're right in your assumption that this is how he gets away with doing 16-20 sheets at a time as the extended time in a weaker developing solution makes the time that it takes to get all those negs in and out of solution insignificant. Also, notice that in the shot with the two teenage girls that I linked to you can see some mottling in the afternoon sky - an undesirable artifact of stand, reduced agitation or short development times. This blemish hardly interferes with the success of the image however - you only really notice it when you observe the image through those dreaded photo-geek glasses that technique snobs prefer.

Thank you both for taking the time, Darin you hit what I had been mis-understanding. Early on in my film adventures I tested different ISO speeds and I had my understanding backwards. In that I thought highlights developed before shadows and thats why what I was reading made no sense. I have heard meter for the shadows, devlop for the highlights for a while I just assumed the method wrong. What you said makes sense to me know understanding the shadows develop first and really since I was just tinkering with contact prints I should have realized it watching a print develop and sorting out a time for it. I knew it had to be something stupid and basic. Teaching yourself has to fail somewhere. So with all that said the question is how to apply it.

Frotog, not a lot of lilly white tweens running around but im sure I can find a substitute. For the sake of clarity lets say im using TMAX 400. When im metering, should I be metering the shadows with the ISO set to 100 then shoot at whatever f/stop and shutter that is? What would I be basing my dev start time on, 100 or 400? Then lets say I do that and make a note on each holder how high my highs are, say I shoot for the shadows at f5.6 but my highlights are f16. I subtract X seconds based on the ratio?

So saying thats right I should in theory with a little experiments be able to find a time im happy with anytime thats the ratio or similar lighting?

[Darin Boville]

What you said makes sense to me know understanding the shadows develop first and really since I was just tinkering with contact prints I should have realized it watching a print develop and sorting out a time for it. I knew it had to be something stupid and basic.

Not stupid at all. Very complicated and foreign at first, so simple and elegant later.

Just to hit the nail one more time to be sure, remember that when printing it's all backwards from the negative. Clear neg = dense print, while dense neg portion = highlights in print. So when you are watching the print develop in the tray you will see that the highlights hit their final tone fairly quickly. The dark tones in the print will keep getting darker, within limits, the longer you leave it in the developer.

It seems backwards on the print yet it is not--it is the exact same thing as the negative--less dense areas aren't affected much by development, dense areas are affected more.

When printing the basic idea is to, like film, choose your exposure to get the less dense values you want (the clear-ish areas of the film, the white-ish areas of the print) and then develop more or less (or change contrast grades of paper) to adjust the dense areas (dense areas of neg, dark areas of print) to make them what you want them to be. The rest is all refinement.

--Darin

[ryanmills]

Not stupid at all. Very complicated and foreign at first, so simple and elegant later.

Just to hit the nail one more time to be sure, remember that when printing it's all backwards from the negative. Clear neg = dense print, while dense neg portion = highlights in print. So when you are watching the print develop in the tray you will see that the highlights hit their final tone fairly quickly. The dark tones in the print will keep getting darker, within limits, the longer you leave it in the developer.

It seems backwards on the print yet it is not--it is the exact same thing as the negative--less dense areas aren't affected much by development, dense areas are affected more.

When printing the basic idea is to, like film, choose your exposure to get the less dense values you want (the clear-ish areas of the film, the white-ish areas of the print) and then develop more or less (or change contrast grades of paper) to adjust the dense areas (dense areas of neg, dark areas of print) to make them what you want them to be. The rest is all refinement.

--Darin

Yea, all making sense now. Zone system, way more sense. I was looking at it as a liner process and your starting ISO effects curve and well that was clearly wrong. Breaking out ansels books to review things, obviously I was not understanding things correctly. Question now is how to meter, to follow jocks process is it better to start with boxspeed or drop it a few stops i.e. ISO 400 film to 100 and have the meter set at 100? And when using an ambient light meter when I meter the shadows should that be my shooting settings (within reason, sometimes you just know you need to push a little more)?

[Daniel Stone]

Sigh... there is always that one guy... Offers nothing but "dont even try it" or "your not good enough" without a single bit of useful information. Goes on to insult the photographer who quite frankly makes your work look like 4 yearolds finger painting then comes back with this garbage trying to sound educated. Why would i even begin to respect your opinion after that. Better yet keep that in mind the next time you bother to post this useless dribble that's hard to hear through the jealousy of knowing you will never make it like he did.

Learning how your betters got results makes you a better photographer, maybe I cant get it exact but understanding it is important and quite frankly your a wasting your time trying to insult my ability's. Frankly my darling, I dont give a damn.

grow up mate

I've spoken with Drew over the phone in the past, and various times throughout PM's and such over the past few years. He knows his stuff technically. To be quite frank, YOU are the one asking the questions here, so you should be ready for various answers. You have to sort out things for yourself. If you don't like his answers, just skip over them w/o reading.

The images I've seen of Jock Sturges are well printed. Not a "look" (I) would choose for everything, but it's his work, not mine. I'd agree with Bob, that Mr. Sturges' prints are printed quite "open", meaning full shadow detail, but with elongated highlight detail. Not easy to get, but definitely attainable when you KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!

I don't point fingers anymore, for obvious reasons. But Drew has been shooting LF for a LOOOONG time, and his information(albeit sometimes perceived as 'brash' or brazenly put) has been spot-on when I've asked him questions. He knows his stuff, he's fastidious about his work/craft, and I would consider a valued member here.

Try being more open to answers from other members who know what they're talking about...

"Pushing" = UNDERexposing the film, and/or elongating development to compensate for less exposure. This cuts off shadow detail faster, and generally produces higher global contrast.
"Pulling" = the opposite

Both have their limitations, of course. TESTING so you have guidelines to work upon for YOUR tastes and needs is imperative. No cutting in line here. You'll need to test, unless you prefer "shooting from the hip" and having only a vague, potentially non-existant understanding of what you'll end up with.

-Dan

[Bill Burk]

ryanmills,

I shoot 400 speed film at 250. Carefully metered and developed normally. I certainly appreciate hearing advice to overexpose and underdevelop. That advice is easy to follow and I am sure it will give you nearly the same look with less care (care-free). I wouldn't call it pulling. I would consider it exposing adequately and then developing to taste.

I'd rather have you follow that simple advice, than have you shoot the same film at 1600. Many people choose an extremely high exposure index, and produce much interesting work. But they don't have rich shadows. They have bold contrasty graphics. That's the definition of pushing. Don't do it (Not generic advice, specific... I can tell from what you wrote that you don't want to push).

[Darin Boville]

Question now is how to meter, to follow jocks process is it better to start with boxspeed or drop it a few stops i.e. ISO 400 film to 100 and have the meter set at 100? And when using an ambient light meter when I meter the shadows should that be my shooting settings (within reason, sometimes you just know you need to push a little more)?

Generally, most people shoot B&W film slower than rated. So 400 film is really shot at 250. So from that perspective Sturges is just shooting a stop more exposure. Another thing to consider is that modern films are awfully forgiving, especially with regards to highlights getting too high. And modern films don't get all grainy with overexposure like back in the Ansel days (thus the emphasis on the minimum exposure for the needs of the scene. And if you are scanning you'll encounter a sort of magical thing where the scanner can pick up tons of detail in negative areas that print very dark with little detail and that look awfully clear.

To move forwards from here, I'd advise to just rate your film a little lower than normal (i.e. 250 instead of 400) and develop according to the directions. That will get you close enough for now. Then come back to refine things *after you start to see a need to do so.* You can easily spend the rest of your life testing and arguing about testing. Much better to spend your time photographing.

--Darin

[Bruce Watson]

If you over expose then under develop don't you end up at the same spot?

Nope. That's a key point -- you do not end up in the same spot.

If you do this, you've pushed shadow detail up the response curve, off of and away from the toe of the curve. You've compressed the tonality of the image non-linearly. Dmax might be the same, but Dmin has been raised, so the range of density between Dmax and Dmin is smaller; thus, compression. But it's compression of the highlights, less compression of the mid tones, and even less compression of the shadows. Plus, by bringing the shadows up the response curve you've made them lighter in the final print and thus easier to see. So what you end up with is an emphasis on the shadow details at the expense of highlight details, and to a lesser extent mid tones.

You'd understand this, and the ramifications of it, a lot better if you actually understood the Zone System and/or some of it's competitors. Adams does a good job of explaining it in The Negative, but his writing style isn't the easiest to understand if you aren't into the technical details. It's not a book for sissies.

But it all comes down to: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Like it always has.

[frotog]

Frotog, not a lot of lilly white tweens running around but im sure I can find a substitute. For the sake of clarity lets say im using TMAX 400. When im metering, should I be metering the shadows with the ISO set to 100 then shoot at whatever f/stop and shutter that is? What would I be basing my dev start time on, 100 or 400? Then lets say I do that and make a note on each holder how high my highs are, say I shoot for the shadows at f5.6 but my highlights are f16. I subtract X seconds based on the ratio?

So saying thats right I should in theory with a little experiments be able to find a time im happy with anytime thats the ratio or similar lighting?

In order to get you on the right track, put down your A. Adams book, forget about the zone system and spot metering and get yourself an incident light meter (the kind with the little white hemisphere protruding from it). Follow the instructions I enumerated above. With the incident meter you are getting an averaged reading of the light falling on your subject - there is no need to separately measure the highlights and the shadows in the scene. In other words, if the white dome is pointed back at your camera, it's hard to go wrong. And yes, if you're shooting 400 speed film set your meter to 160asa or even 100asa. In the drkrm., your starting dev. time is not critical at this point as you will be honing your times with trial and error after you make a print and inspect/compare the results. If your highlights in your arbitrary N development are blocked up, then move on to your N-1 (15% less development than your N sheet). And if the N-1 neg has highlights that are blocking up then move on to your N-2 neg (30% less time).

Another way of approaching this is to develop to gamma infinity. Not all developers are suited to this technique though. Instead of stand or semi-stand, a short-cut would be a two-part compensating developer like diafine or, better yet, divided pyrocat. With compensating developers, developing time is not as crucial as the "b" part of the solution (the accelerator) is quickly exhausted in the highlights, essentially contracting the tonal scale, much like stand or semi-stand (just a lot faster). This technique, while prone to processing blemishes, makes it extremely easy to get a balanced neg with open shadows and unblocked highlights regardless of the nominal film speed. Pushing and pulling becomes more a function of agitation (less for pull, more for push) and temp. then extended or protracted times in the dev. bath. Another saving grace is that the compensating effect of these techniques is tremendously forgiving in regards to the exposure of your film. Consider the way diafine and the now discontinued Cachet AB55 promote their two-part compensating formulas - "Now develop all your films, regardless of film speed, in the same tank with the same time!" I suppose that this, namely the use of some sort of compensating technique to achieve gamma infinity development in the shadows, in conjunction with his intimate understanding of his materials, explains why Mr. Sturges is not a slave to his light meter and the zone system - hardly a case of "shooting from the hip", lol.

Once you make your prints from the n, n-1 and n-2 negs you have, I suspect you'll have a clear understanding of how to proceed.

Best of luck (and never mind the smugness of the trolls…oops... I mean our valued members;))!

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/ExposureAndDevelopment.png

[sanking]

Frotog has described a simple but effective path for the OP to achieve his ends.

1. Meter with an incident meter, setting the ISO (ASA) to one stop or two stops less than box rating. If you are using Tri-X-320, set the meter film speed to 80 or 160. Take the meter reading with the meter in the shadows, with the dome pointing toward the camera. Make the exposure choosing an aperture that gives you depth of field at a shutter speed that works for you. A tripod is often necessary with this type of work. Just make the exposure, don't even try to think why, and don't fret about the highlights.

2. Develop your film in a two-bath developer of the type where the film absorbs the reducer in Solution A, and the image develops in the accelerator in Solution B. Diafine is a commericial choice, Pyrocat-HD another choice. The beauty of two-bath development is that , 1) the shadows will fully develop, 2) highlights have a finite point to which they can develop because of the amount of reducer absorbed in Solution A, and 3) two bath development typically gives a long straight curve, in contrast to the compression effect you basically get with other methods to limit contrast.

There are several articles on the use of Pyrocat as a two-bath developer at http://pyrocat-hd.com/

In short, there is a magic bullet for the OP called, 1) incident reading in the shadow, and 2) two-bath development.

Sandy

[ryanmills]

grow up mate

I've spoken with Drew over the phone in the past, and various times throughout PM's and such over the past few years. He knows his stuff technically. To be quite frank, YOU are the one asking the questions here, so you should be ready for various answers. You have to sort out things for yourself. If you don't like his answers, just skip over them w/o reading.


Your comment "Try being more open to answers from other members who know what they're talking about..."

His original post.


That's called shooting from the hip.... which is often synonymous with shooting yourself in the foot... or in the case of large format film, unnecessarily shooting holes in your wallet. Some films will let you be sloppier than others, but achieving rich tonality has exactly zero to do with guessing exposures. Buy a light meter.

"Buy a light meter." Yes, please tell me more about the amazing information he has to offer and watch how much I don't care about what either of you think anymore. You want to be a troll and jerk, fine but don't try to defend it after the fact.

[ryanmills]

In order to get you on the right track, put down your A. Adams book, forget about the zone system and spot metering and get yourself an incident light meter (the kind with the little white hemisphere protruding from it). Follow the instructions I enumerated above. With the incident meter you are getting an averaged reading of the light falling on your subject - there is no need to separately measure the highlights and the shadows in the scene. In other words, if the white dome is pointed back at your camera, it's hard to go wrong. And yes, if you're shooting 400 speed film set your meter to 160asa or even 100asa. In the drkrm., your starting dev. time is not critical at this point as you will be honing your times with trial and error after you make a print and inspect/compare the results. If your highlights in your arbitrary N development are blocked up, then move on to your N-1 (15% less development than your N sheet). And if the N-1 neg has highlights that are blocking up then move on to your N-2 neg (30% less time).

Another way of approaching this is to develop to gamma infinity. Not all developers are suited to this technique though. Instead of stand or semi-stand, a short-cut would be a two-part compensating developer like diafine or, better yet, divided pyrocat. With compensating developers, developing time is not as crucial as the "b" part of the solution (the accelerator) is quickly exhausted in the highlights, essentially contracting the tonal scale, much like stand or semi-stand (just a lot faster). This technique, while prone to processing blemishes, makes it extremely easy to get a balanced neg with open shadows and unblocked highlights regardless of the nominal film speed. Pushing and pulling becomes more a function of agitation (less for pull, more for push) and temp. then extended or protracted times in the dev. bath. Another saving grace is that the compensating effect of these techniques is tremendously forgiving in regards to the exposure of your film. Consider the way diafine and the now discontinued Cachet AB55 promote their two-part compensating formulas - "Now develop all your films, regardless of film speed, in the same tank with the same time!" I suppose that this, namely the use of some sort of compensating technique to achieve gamma infinity development in the shadows, in conjunction with his intimate understanding of his materials, explains why Mr. Sturges is not a slave to his light meter and the zone system - hardly a case of "shooting from the hip", lol.

Once you make your prints from the n, n-1 and n-2 negs you have, I suspect you'll have a clear understanding of how to proceed.


Yea, im tracking with you, I think for my own sanity im going to stick to my tri-x 320/hc110 and tmax/tmax rs combos. Will have to tinker and see what I get. Part of my mistake was my density's were based on what was easy to scan. Going to proper enlargements now I have a feeling I need to tweak my density anyway. Thanks for your help, much tinkering to do now.



Best of luck (and never mind the smugness of the trolls…oops... I mean our valued members;))!

lol, it really never fails, god forbid someone ask a question in a forum... I do find it somewhat amusing, you expect it with kids but grown men in a forum... the inferiority complex is strong in those two.

[frotog]

Ken's post is a very helpful visualization of what happens with compression and expansion of the tonal scale. But keep in mind (I'm making an educated guess here) that in Ken's grid, the one variable that is constant is print exposure. So while the lower right corner exposure and the exposure just to the right of it look right, a photographer like Mr. Sturges would undoubtedly choose the negative that's been most compressed (upper left corner), assign more contrast to the print and then print down in order to get that radiant glow and micro-tonality in the highlights. This is why I suggested you make the best prints you can from your three, consecutively-less-developed negs. Again, this would be an empirical approach to matching the curve of the neg to that of the paper so as to get the results you want.

Or make things even simpler and skip the n-1, n-2 dev and get yourself some two part developer. Sandy is correct about pyrocat. Read up on divided pyrocat (Sandy has published lots of info regarding this technique on the forum) and get yourself some pyrocat and alkaline fix from the formulary. You'll be amazed at how easy it will be to print these negs!

[frotog]

…was posting when your last post came through. Not that I'm an analogue snob (far from it as the power of digital imaging is now essential to quality color printing), but these techniques would make a lot more sense to you if you were printing traditionally. But without access to a drkrm., make certain that your scanner presets stay the same, neg to neg. so that you can see how your process is effecting your results.

If I were you I'd stick with the tri-x and hc-110 rather than the tabular stuff - a more versatile, flexible combo. While I've never tried it, there are people who've had success using hc-110 as a two part compensating developer. See here… http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/71173-barnbaums-hc-110-two-solution-process.html

[ryanmills]

Ken's post is a very helpful visualization of what happens with compression and expansion of the tonal scale. But keep in mind (I'm making an educated guess here) that in Ken's grid, the one variable that is constant is print exposure. So while the lower right corner exposure and the exposure just to the right of it look right, a photographer like Mr. Sturges would undoubtedly choose the negative that's been most compressed (upper left corner), assign more contrast to the print and then print down in order to get that radiant glow and micro-tonality in the highlights. This is why I suggested you make the best prints you can from your three, consecutively-less-developed negs. Again, this would be an empirical approach to matching the curve of the neg to that of the paper so as to get the results you want.

Or make things even simpler and skip the n-1, n-2 dev and get yourself some two part developer. Sandy is correct about pyrocat. Read up on divided pyrocat (Sandy has published lots of info regarding this technique on the forum) and get yourself some pyrocat and alkaline fix from the formulary. You'll be amazed at how easy it will be to print these negs!

I cant remember if I saw that image on kens website or some place else but I did use it and another to try and sort out density early on in the end it was just trial and error and I found something that work. Should be a lot easier this time around. Its just hard with those to see what the lighting was really like on that day and judge it accordingly. I'm picking up and enlarger Thursday and have a boat load of different papers slowing make there way from new york. I ordered some of Original seagull papers that are at least similar to jocks paper back in the 90's. Once im getting something close on the cheap ilford will see what I get on those. Thou I got a color head so i'm sure sorting that out on VC papers should involve a far bit of drinking on my part.

[jumanji]

Why not just ask him??

[ryanmills]

…was posting when your last post came through. Not that I'm an analogue snob (far from it as the power of digital imaging is now essential to quality color printing), but these techniques would make a lot more sense to you if you were printing traditionally. But without access to a drkrm., make certain that your scanner presets stay the same, neg to neg. so that you can see how your process is effecting your results.

If I were you I'd stick with the tri-x and hc-110 rather than the tabular stuff - a more versatile, flexible combo. While I've never tried it, there are people who've had success using hc-110 as a two part compensating developer. See here… http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/71173-barnbaums-hc-110-two-solution-process.html

Scanning has given me more trouble than anything with film and im kind of over it. I was utterly grateful for Ken's site, its the exact process I use on a v700 but im just not happy with the end result. I do have a good size darkroom so im looking forward to trying silver gel and once I find a big enough UV source platinum printing and some other alt styles.

[ryanmills]

Why not just ask him??

He has been quite kind and answered a number of questions for me, but this is kind of a more complex question and clearly I did not have a good grasp of it at the start. Once im getting close I may.

[jumanji]

You need some books. They will give you basic principles. The Camera, The Negative and The Print from Ansel Adams are good start.
I have two of his books. The last day of summer and Notes. Love them. He's using mostly a Leica S2 now.

[Andy Eads]

Unabashed plug...read my book right here. It's free for the download. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/VIDEC.pdf

My method discloses that both sensitivity and contrast change with degree of development. It is testable, predictable and field usable.

Enjoy the good light.

Andy

[blueribbontea]

Scanning has given me more trouble than anything with film and im kind of over it. I was utterly grateful for Ken's site, its the exact process I use on a v700 but im just not happy with the end result. I do have a good size darkroom so im looking forward to trying silver gel and once I find a big enough UV source platinum printing and some other alt styles.



Note Ryan that when you are ready to do platinum and other alternative processes you will need a different kind of negative than the flat and compressed negs that you are interested in so far.

Bill

[ryanmills]

You need some books. They will give you basic principles. The Camera, The Negative and The Print from Ansel Adams are good start.
I have two of his books. The last day of summer and Notes. Love them. He's using mostly a Leica S2 now.

Yea I have all three of Ansel's book and Last days of summer, Radiant Identities, Misty Dawn, Notes and New Work 96'-00' (my favorite, large and very well printed), fanny his new book may come out in march but its been delayed a few times and he has not promoted it at all yet. It's curious he borrowed the S2 from Roy Kahmann after the rolli project, he did say he loved digital now more and has been using a giant epson for archival work so I wonder if he is done with film. He said the costs to shoot 8x10 color have just gotten to much and they dont make the Tri-X he liked so who knows. I really hope he keeps up with film, the digital has not been as interesting to me.

[ryanmills]

Unabashed plug...read my book right here. It's free for the download. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/VIDEC.pdf

My method discloses that both sensitivity and contrast change with degree of development. It is testable, predictable and field usable.

Enjoy the good light.

Andy

Thanks I will take a look thru it!

[ryanmills]

Note Ryan that when you are ready to do platinum and other alternative processes you will need a different kind of negative than the flat and compressed negs that you are interested in so far.

Bill

Yea, hoping to make 16x20 in the end so the whole process of enlarging the negative big enough to contact print that should have me back here in short order with a great deal of my own hair in my hands.

[Colin Robertson]

Good evening Ryan. What a thread you've inspired.

Your original post raises a couple of issues. First, in the quote from Jock Sturges he talks about 'overexposing a couple of stops'. To achieve that set your meter to a slower speed- so, if using ISO 400, set 100. If ISO 100, set 25.
What then happens is that areas of shadow (low zones) record more information on the film- rather than thin, empty film they record as tone. Of course that would mean the highlights get 'too much' exposure, pushing them to dense, opaque black on the neg (blinding white in the print).
Severely reducing development stops the highlights getting there- there is time for the shadow detail to develop, but there isn't long enough for the highlights to 'block up'.
It's a kind of 'evening out' process- more exposure drags the shadows up closer to Zone V
Less development holds the highlights back from getting too far away from Zone V

(Pushing is the complete reverse- setting a faster meter speed, so the film gets less exposure (thinner, emptier shadows) with longer development to force the highlights up towards the higher zones. It gives a contrasty, dark shadowed look. This is not the look you're admiring in Sturges' work!)

If I was you? I'd take some holders loaded with my favourite film.
I'd shoot back-to-back exposures of the same scenes, one set at two stops slower than box speed, second set at two stops faster.
Develop the slow set for 30% LESS than your usual time, develop the 'fast' set for 30% more than usual.

Make the best prints you can from each set- ask yourself if you can see a difference. On 5x4 the price of maybe 8 to 10 sheets of film (2 sets of 4 or 5) and some paper isn't a huge investment to help clarify what you like to see in a print.
Best of luck!

[ryanmills]

Good evening Ryan. What a thread you've inspired.

Your original post raises a couple of issues. First, in the quote from Jock Sturges he talks about 'overexposing a couple of stops'. To achieve that set your meter to a slower speed- so, if using ISO 400, set 100. If ISO 100, set 25.
What then happens is that areas of shadow (low zones) record more information on the film- rather than thin, empty film they record as tone. Of course that would mean the highlights get 'too much' exposure, pushing them to dense, opaque black on the neg (blinding white in the print).
Severely reducing development stops the highlights getting there- there is time for the shadow detail to develop, but there isn't long enough for the highlights to 'block up'.
It's a kind of 'evening out' process- more exposure drags the shadows up closer to Zone V
Less development holds the highlights back from getting too far away from Zone V

(Pushing is the complete reverse- setting a faster meter speed, so the film gets less exposure (thinner, emptier shadows) with longer development to force the highlights up towards the higher zones. It gives a contrasty, dark shadowed look. This is not the look you're admiring in Sturges' work!)

If I was you? I'd take some holders loaded with my favourite film.
I'd shoot back-to-back exposures of the same scenes, one set at two stops slower than box speed, second set at two stops faster.
Develop the slow set for 30% LESS than your usual time, develop the 'fast' set for 30% more than usual.

Make the best prints you can from each set- ask yourself if you can see a difference. On 5x4 the price of maybe 8 to 10 sheets of film (2 sets of 4 or 5) and some paper isn't a huge investment to help clarify what you like to see in a print.
Best of luck!

Thanks thats pretty much what im going to do. Just to be clear if im using 400 speed film but metering at 100, my dev start time roughly what the dev time for 100 is and adjust from there right?

[Colin Robertson]

Which film and which developer will you be using Ryan?
If this is a combination you've used before, what is you're developing time for ISO 400?
Cheers!

[ryanmills]

Which film and which developer will you be using Ryan?
If this is a combination you've used before, what is you're developing time for ISO 400?
Cheers!

I use tri-x 320 with HC-110 and TMAX100 & 400 with TMAX RS. I'm not sure what they are doing to HC110 and I hate the 400 speed emulsion of tri-x so I may just switch to TMAX. It just costs a lot more to develop. Tri-X 400 is just the normal times listed for HC110, i might play around with it again but so far just not happy with it.

[Steve Sherman]

Certainly everyone is different in their preferences with regard to film development and how to shape the film for final printing. To that end, there are many "ways to skin the cat". However, to fully and properly realize all the potential the glorious wet process can produce one must marry their style, negative processing and resulting printing technique into a unique relationship tailored to the photographer's preferences and the materials one chooses. Only those controlling the entire process from beginning to end can reverently speak of how to.... skin the cat!

Reduced Agitation forms of development offer more flexibility and creative potential than any other method of processing film. If your not familiar with the many ways to develop film you really have no cat in the fight. The Reduced Agitation process is however, not for everyone, it is time consuming and tedious at best and certainly does not favor heavy shooters.

It is my belief and I believe based on Sandy's comments his viewpoint as well, the processing of film is much more "process based" than it is about one film reacting with different developers to effect the characteristic shape of the film's curve.

I prefer to develop my negatives to a very low contrast index, usually between .9 and 1.10 density above Film Base + Fog. Even before Multi-Contrast papers came into vogue I would seek high contrast scenes, give generous exposure with a significant reduction in development with the intention of printing on "hard contrast" graded papers. On the surface this seems to go against common sense, hopefully I will explain the principles clearly and the reasoning will make sense. Today, the quality of Multi-contrast papers have effectively brought about the demise of graded papers.

Think of the relationship between film and Multi Contrast paper this way, the extremes of the paper are maximum black and paper base white, these cannot change, they are basically the same no matter what multi contrast paper you use provided you do not have side by side comparisons, (I use and feel that the Ilford Warmtone Multi Contrast paper is the finest currently available today.) Think of the enlarging paper being used as a bellows with the beginning and end of the bellows as D max and Paper Base white. The center section of the bellows equates to the Mid Tones, with a low contrast negative your resulting printing technique requires expanding the Mid Tones (mid section of bellows) where as a higher contrast negative requires compression of the Mid Tones and the High Values. When viewing / evaluating prints it is the Mid Tones and their relationship to one another that we most react with, near or pure black or white are nothing more than reference points. Prints will always look superior when mid tone contrast is expanded rather than compressed in concert with a properly designed negative. I use this approach for any scene contrast I encounter, so in an ultra high contrast scene I will knowing develop that negative to a lower contrast index fully knowing I am going to use the hardest contrast printing combination I can.

When combining the above method with the capabilities of "Split Contrast Printing" in other words using only the # 1 and # 5 filters to affect contrast and density on the final print the Mid Tones of the photograph realize their maximum potential. The debate of "Split Contrast Printing" is a topic for another time, rest assured however, that is the best way to portray the Mid Tones to their full potential, if one concedes that Mid Tone Relationships are what we react with most, than the point is moot.

I visit and see a lot of photographer's work, both contemporary and vintage, if there were superior results out there with regard to Silver Gelatin printing I would be the first one to change the way to... skin a cat!

Cheers

[ic-racer]

my experience is that pushing increases contrast.
That is all it does.

[Bill Burk]

Thanks thats pretty much what im going to do. Just to be clear if im using 400 speed film but metering at 100, my dev start time roughly what the dev time for 100 is and adjust from there right?

It's counter-intuitive, but pick the time for 400. Another counter-intuitive point that explains why I suggest that. Photographs taken in bright sun don't necessarily have a long range. Maybe 5-6 stops metered difference from black to white in one kind of light. It's photographs taken in bright sun plus areas in shade - where that shade is important - that have long range. So you might have a normal range subject and you might not need to underdevelop shots taken in bright sun, if everything's in the sun.

Bright sun, 400 speed film rated at 250 (1/300 f/16 no filter) developed normally and printed on Grade 2.

http://beefalobill.com/images/IMG_7919s.jpg

[James Morris]

Ryan: I don't know how clear it is after all this, but he's basically pulling the film, 1-2 stops.

[Bill Burk]

Ryan,

I don't know if graphs work for you. But I thought I'd draw some points on my TMY-2/D-76 1:1 curve family to illustrate my actual photograph and where the tones fall.

I pulled out the negative and measured it on a densitometer. Her hair has a density 0.20, the grass 0.72, brightest highlight I could measure on the lower skirt 0.88 and brightest part of her arm 1.10. This means essentially my negative has a measured density range of 0.90 - suited for Grade 3 paper. I am sure that there are higher densities in this negative, and actually I printed it on Grade 2 paper. So the Grade a negative is suited for and the Grade you eventually use is not scientifically determined, and every write-up comes short of telling you what Grade you have to use for any negative... It's always up to the printer.

But I digress...

If I had overexposed this same shot, and didn't change from normal development time... by definition, the same exposures would "ride up the curve" and they would be on the same curve. These are the boxes I drew. Notice how the density "range" is still close (I guess 0.95 essentially the same range of density, essentially will print the same on the same paper).

That's why I wouldn't develop less for an overexposed shot.

Now talk about what Jock Sturges would do. He says he overexposes and radically underdevelops.

So I marked overexposure and underdevelopment on my graph.

Notice that I still expect a minimum density of 0.12 and a maximum of 0.62 from the same exact shot, developed differently. Now instead of printing on Grade 2, I would have to print on Grade 5. But look at how smooth the curve is. This will have detail in the shadows, and the highlights, no matter how high they might run, won't be too dense to print.

The way Jock Sturges works, frees him from having to evaluate light carefully and instead he can focus his attention on his subject.

Even if he had a very long range subject, you can see to hit the highlight density that I already have, he would have to have a subject with 3 stops more range. In other words, overexposing and underdeveloping gives you a printable negative over a wide range of shooting conditions. It's only going to be the wrong approach when you shoot on gray days.

http://www.beefalobill.com/images/tmygraph.jpg

[Bill Burk]

Also notice how quickly the graphs show "to the left" - towards underexposure - where you hit 0.00 density.

People who "Push" their 400 film to 1000 and higher... work in that territory, where shadows are 0.00 and only the mid-tones and highlights even register on the curves.

[Drew Wiley]

Nothing has changed with HC110 except the elimination of one of the smaller bottle sizes. If you happen to like HC-110, it works fine with TMax films, though it tends
to develop a bit of sag to the curve with unusually low-contrast development, much like the 76 curves just given.

[Bill Burk]

I have seen HC110 graphs with an "upsweep" that graphically appears like my D-76 curves here.

But I have to explain something about my graphs, I don't really get an upsweep in reality (it's not film/developer's characteristics). Turns out the high density steps are near the edge of the film sheet, and that part of the film gets more development the way I process in trays. Lately I make multiple tests staggered on the sheets and average the readings. The upsweep isn't really there, it should be a straight line.

I wanted to take a mean-spirited jab at "Pushing" so I drew red dots showing what would happen if I shot the daylight scene at 1/300 and f/32, then developed it 16 minutes. Turns out, that would have made a really nice negative with about the same density range as my actual. (Edit... flare tends to raise shadows - you don't often get down to 0.04 in a camera shot - so I think I wouldn't get that nice negative after all with a push. The shadows would get compressed)

http://www.beefalobill.com/images/pushgraph2.JPG

[Bill Burk]

I had to edit my PUSH drawing to put the FLARE influenced shadow on the curve... I wanted to explain that every point MUST be on the curve, the edited illustration shows that better.

So printing with a pushed negative, if you thought of printing on Grade 2, because the range is the same, some unpleasant things happen to the picture. Her bright dress gets dimmer and the grass gets darker. Nobody cares about grass (that's OK), but the dress is important in the shot, so I would bet you print on Grade 3 to get the dress looking good... Now her bright skin, instead of having texture, will block up.

Shadows lose detail when you push, and people expect that, but the push development are tough on highlights.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It is important to note that when appropriate, Sturges used flash fill. Do it right in-camera.

[ryanmills]

It is important to note that when appropriate, Sturges used flash fill. Do it right in-camera.

As far as I know, jock has never used a flash... He does use reflectors a lot.

[JimDrakeOnline]

Not everything he shoots is at magic hour…

http://lamodelamour.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mariacarlabosconon-jock-sturges11.jpg

http://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Butterfields/78/105878/H0078-L00418037.jpg

Huge brightness range in these two shots. Again, metering for the highlights on the skin and compressing the tonal scale in development. And since he's always making pictures of pre-pubescent, lily-white nudes in mostly magic hour lighting, I'm not surprised he finds no need for the light meter. There's a reason DP's sometimes refer to it as "stupid hour" ;)

Are both of these shot by Sturges? The top one I've encountered before, but which collection is the second link from? Just when I thought I knew Sturges' work... :confused:

[sun of sand]

Isn't that
Young subjects
What he's truly known for

What a first post


I was going to mention the mortensen article
If you want to be good you have to experiment
No amount of forum reading will do it

[Peter De Smidt]

Ryan,

You might take a look at Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop, http://www.amazon.com/Zone-VI-Workshop-Fred-Picker/dp/0817405747. The tests aren't hard to do, and it would save you a lot of time in the long run.

[Lenny Eiger]

I think that Push and Pull are terms we should dismiss outright, and never use again. I can't tell you how many photographers I've spoken to think you can take your film to a lab and push it, and get the same detail in the shadows as you would without doing so. It's ridiculous, and the terms offer nothing but distraction from the truth of how things work.

For all practical intents and purposes, exposure and development have nothing to do with each other. The statement "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" is the most correct, altho' it doesn't contain the actual meaning of the phrase. It's obvious after you understand what it means.

The long and short of it is that film has a speed, a quantifiable relationship of how sensitive it is to light. The reason I rated TriX at 200 or so all those years ago is that Kodak was stuck in their "Moments of Life" mentality, with a very commercial look, that didn't include much shadow detail. It was clear that they were after a different result than I was, and many other people working in the landscape arena.

These days I shot Ilford Delta 100, a film with far tighter grain than Tri-X ever had. I use it at 100. I'd recommend it. I develop in Pyrocat HD, which is far superior to many of the other choices mentioned. It's similar in many ways to TMax... just cheaper, and I happen to like Ilford better than Kodak.

If you want a full range of tonalities, you have to expose well and develop well. One gets good shadow detail from getting the exposure right, and the contrast is controlled by getting the development right. If you want smoother tonal range, you have to develop less (or less than people who want a more contrasty print). It's just that simple...

[Drew Wiley]

Agreed. It's common to see the terms "push" and "pull" adopted by beginners who are accustomed to using the services of a lab with automated process lines. But
it's really E6 color film vocabulary.