How to address shadows compression... Using Film toe or Paper shoulder

[Pere Casals]

I'm trying to learn how to work shadow's character when printing.

I'd like to know if it's better to compress the shadows by placing them in the toe of the film, or if its better to give more exposure and then placing them in the shoulder of the paper, or burning on it...


I found this is easy to do it digitally with Photoshop, but I found it way more complicated in the darkroom.

[Luis-F-S]

Give the negative more exposure or use a softer grade of paper.

[Pere Casals]

Give the negative more exposure or use a softer grade of paper.

Ok, I understand... so if I'm also going to reduce the general scene contrast with a softer paper grade it's better to place shadows in the toe.

While if I'm going to increase the general scene contrast with a paper higher grade then it's better to place shadows in the linear part of the curve...

So also it also dependes on film processing N+/-, delivered contrast index...

Thanks !!!

[Greg Y]

Ok, I understand... so if I'm also going to reduce the general scene contrast with a softer paper grade it's better to place shadows in the toe.

While if I'm going to increase the general scene contrast with a paper higher grade then it's better to place shadows in the linear part of the curve...

So also it also dependes on film processing N+/-, delivered contrast index...

Thanks !!!

It's on of those 'Rome wasn't built in a day situations'
If you spend a lot of time using one film, you begin to get a feel for what the results of you changes in exposure will be. If you work with one paper.... You begin to see what those shadows look like on paper. That doesn't take into account the light in the scene. If you consider the light in the scene, the exposure, the printing paper....& then add development...those are a lot of variables to juggle. I would make a bunch of negatives at normal development time to see what range you have there with your chosen materials, and then look at what variations of development will give you

[Pere Casals]

It's on of those 'Rome wasn't built in a day situations'
If you spend a lot of time using one film, you begin to get a feel for what the results of you changes in exposure will be. If you work with one paper.... You begin to see what those shadows look like on paper. That doesn't take into account the light in the scene. If you consider the light in the scene, the exposure, the printing paper....& then add development...those are a lot of variables to juggle. I would make a bunch of negatives at normal development time to see what range you have there with your chosen materials, and then look at what variations of development will give you


Thanks for your explanation. I understand that there are a lot of control variables that interact... I've BTZS calibrated films (TMX, HP5) and paper (MG IV, for now), this gives a lot of information,

but it's time to do what you point about bracketing exposure and development, and then see how those negatives can be worked.

Until now I was scanning, but I soon realized that printing in the darkroom requires additional skills on the film side :)

I found scanning+photoshop was useful to learn what was the target... but then comes that adjusting the tonal response in the darkroon it's another war, say art.

[Drew Wiley]

From a practical standpoint, if you compress the shadows during exposure, that's like a one-way street. Not a versatile negative. But if the neg has good separation in the shadows to begin with, you can always modify the result printing, any number of ways. In other words, overexposing the film a bit is generally more helpful than underexposing it. Shadow separation occurs when the exposure is boosted up onto the straight line portion of the film, rather than remaining on the toe; but different types of film differ on how far down the scale this begins. Some have much longer toes than others. But I'm speaking in principle here. Ultimately, we use these choices aesthetically, for how we wants things to look. But that's hard to arrive at without some distinct printing experience. So my advice would be to achieve a versatile negative rather than one which straight-jackets your printing into limited options. All of this becomes quite easy with a bit of practice.

[Pere Casals]

From a practical standpoint, if you compress the shadows during exposure, that's like a one-way street. Not a versatile negative. But if the neg has good separation in the shadows to begin with, you can always modify the result printing, any number of ways. In other words, overexposing the film a bit is generally more helpful than underexposing it. Shadow separation occurs when the exposure is boosted up onto the straight line portion of the film, rather than remaining on the toe; but different types of film differ on how far down the scale this begins. Some have much longer toes than others. But I'm speaking in principle here. Ultimately, we use these choices aesthetically, for how we wants things to look. But that's hard to arrive at without some distinct printing experience. So my advice would be to achieve a versatile negative rather than one which straight-jackets your printing into limited options. All of this becomes quite easy with a bit of practice.


Hello Drew,

Thanks for your advice.

If I understand well what you point, what is compressed in the film toe later cannot be well separated... so compressing shadows in the printing process has a higher degree of control.

I'll try to get that practice, I'm thinking in braketing scenes with deep shadows and then exploring how a more or less versatile negative can we worked to obtain these deep rich shadows, and at what level the jacket is too straight and it limits available options too much.

Regards,

Pere

[Jim Jones]

Subject matter is an important consideration when compressing or expanding the shadows. Yousuf Karsh relied on placing shadows on the toe of the film and developing for a full range negative. This reduced contrast in the shadows, but enhanced it in the more important midtones and highlights. Highlight contrast could be boosted by discrete bleaching. To increase shadow contrast, a well-exposed negative can also be slightly bleached. For most of us, a well-exposed and unbleached negative is safer.

[Pere Casals]

Subject matter is an important consideration when compressing or expanding the shadows. Yousuf Karsh relied on placing shadows on the toe of the film and developing for a full range negative. This reduced contrast in the shadows, but enhanced it in the more important midtones and highlights. Highlight contrast could be boosted by discrete bleaching. To increase shadow contrast, a well-exposed negative can also be slightly bleached. For most of us, a well-exposed and unbleached negative is safer.

From what you point I've revisited Karsh photographs to see that effect. I often review Karsh master, but really this time I've seen it from another point of view... I feel those shadows allow subject personality to flow. I looks that he worked a lot of portraits by placing shadows in the toe.

Midtones look expanded, rendering well perceived volumes... and highlight roll-off is smooth. I've specilly observed Bogart's portrait, but there are a lot... Shaw, Warhool, Churchill, Nehru....

I've still never worked highlights with bleacher... it looks interesting, dirty whites do reduce impact... I'll remember it.

Thanks for the advice.

[Drew Wiley]

Get to first base first: a versatile neg with information all the way from what you regard as relevant shadows through the highlights. Keep is simple. After you've
learned to print well with one film and paper, you can start thinking about getting to second base, and how to differentially control midtone expansion using different development strategies or even more cooperative film choices. Karsh wasn't a one-trick pony, or he'd have gone out of business. Different subjects require a different approach. I wouldn't be surprised if he used Ortho film for some of his warty old men "character" portraits, something that certainly wouldn't be appropriate for some Hollywood gal all slathered with makeup in the first place to disguise the zits and lines. But most of Karsh's prints of famous men that I've seen really skated on midtone expansion rather than highlights. He likes deep shadows, but more for their drama or chiaroscuro effect. Shadows are easy enough to print down, so no telling what Karsh's original negs were like unless you've actually seen em. Many films have changed anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh bleaches... Not all papers bleach well. Cold tone papers are especially prone to annoying discoloration on bleached areas due to silver reduction. Studio portraitists were more likely to use red film dye or pencil smudge to lighten select areas, and of course, tended to be masters of lighting in the first place.

[Pere Casals]

Get to first base first: a versatile neg with information all the way from what you regard as relevant shadows through the highlights. Keep is simple. After you've
learned to print well with one film and paper, you can start thinking about getting to second base, and how to differentially control midtone expansion using different development strategies or even more cooperative film choices. Karsh wasn't a one-trick pony, or he'd have gone out of business. Different subjects require a different approach. I wouldn't be surprised if he used Ortho film for some of his warty old men "character" portraits, something that certainly wouldn't be appropriate for some Hollywood gal all slathered with makeup in the first place to disguise the zits and lines. But most of Karsh's prints of famous men that I've seen really skated on midtone expansion rather than highlights. He likes deep shadows, but more for their drama or chiaroscuro effect. Shadows are easy enough to print down, so no telling what Karsh's original negs were like unless you've actually seen em. Many films have changed anyway.

Hello Drew,

Thanks for the advice, this is true... it's better to first mastering well the basics, perhaps I was trying to advance too fast. What I generally do for now is to find the exposition that depicts highlights well and then I increase the contrast grade until the shadows are dark enough, but then midtones are not controled, so at the end I adjust midtones and then I try to burn highlights with a pin.

From your words I conclude that illumination have to be well coordinated with development in order to depict volumes well, for example. LF has that advantage, one can cook each sheet different. So I guess I'll end metering exposure for fill and key, and depending on the range I'll have to select an N+/- for a given film...

I've searched the net, and yes... it looks Karsh also used Ortho, I gues this can be emulated a bit with a cyan filter that supress red rays, I tried to do BW conversions from color protraits with PS to learn that.

Well, I guess that the pencil smudge on tracing paper was for contact copy ony... Does Not?

Chiaroscuro effect, OK, I'll work on that concept.

Thanks !

[Drew Wiley]

Sheet films of that era typically had a bit of texture or "tooth" on the backside to facilitate pencil work. Nowadays, some sheet films are a bit too smooth. But you can always register a translucent sheet of frosted mylar "drafting vellum" if you want to experiment with pencil or dye without altering the film itself. But again, get comfortable with the basics first. Pin down your shadows and highlights. Controlling gradation in the middle is more involved, and can't really develop
a good strategy until the extremes are tamed first. Depends on the specific film as well as your printing paper. Otherwise, yes, you can simulate that Ortho look
with a strong green filter using panchromatic film. One film that drops the shadows very cleanly into hard black if you deliberately underexpose it, without a bunch of muddiness, is TMY400; but you have to meter for this film rather carefully. Then you can slightly overdevelop it (longer time), and create lovely midtone expansion. There are just lots and lots of tricks. Just remember to have fun. Sometimes our "mistakes" along the way come out wonderful too, though
in a different manner than we originally anticipated.

[Pere Casals]

Controlling gradation in the middle is more involved, and can't really develop
a good strategy until the extremes are tamed first.


I'll try that TMY usage

I've a question...

If first I adjust both extremes this will fix both the paper grade and paper exposure... then there is no room to modify the midtones range for that negative...

When both extremes are right... ¿What it can be done to modify midtones?

[Drew Wiley]

There really is no "right". That's the whole idea. You tailor things to what you consider useful, hopefully with a margin of error built in. This takes some experience develop film as well as printing. No way around that. But I wouldn't want to complicate things too much at first. You can always expand your midtones during printing by boosting VC paper contrast or using longer development. Of course, this increases contrast overall; but you can dodge and burn etc. Even trying to pin down an alleged paper grade can be a bit too theoretical at first. Put your negative on a lightbox. You should be able to see gradation even in the thin areas, corresponding to shadows (only what you intend to be pure black should be totally clear), and then the dense areas corresponding to highlights should have visible gradation also, without being so "blocked up" with overexposure you can't see through them. This is just a rough guideline. With experience we can discuss many other variables.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks Drew for your explanation.

Sumarizing, what I understand is that by selecting film+exposure+development+paper_type+grade it it possible to render an scene visualization with great degree of control, but not complete control.

If one needs compete control then first available tool is burning/dodging + split grade and beyond this we have CRM, SCIM, etc

I'm to do a first try with masking... just to take a preview of next step, while still practicing the basics.

[Drew Wiley]

Masking is itself best learned if you have a reasonably versatile test negative, although it can be used to salvage somewhat overdone highlights too. You can learn the basics just by visual registration over a lightbox, though if it appeals to you, serious involvement requires punch and register gear. You need a film capable of low contrast development over a long range. Both TMax100 and FP4 work well. For developer you can use ordinary 76, though highly dilute HC-110 works better. Then you need some frosted mylar sheeting frosted on both sides 5-mil thickness, available from art stores. Don't use frosted acetate. Practicing masking exposure and development using a calibrated step wedge also helps. It can be boring at first, just like repetitively playing chords on the piano, but an exercise which pays back in the long run. Otherwise, unsharp masking is a complex subject in its own right, with many options. It is a category of technique which will allow to have your cake and eat it too, within reason. In other words, you can bag your shadow values with sufficient exposure onto the straight line
of an appropriate film, expand development time enough to significantly boost gradation in the midtones, and then rein in the highlights via masking to sustain
excellent tonality there too. But again, it's all about practice, practice, practice.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks, I've searched and I found "MATTE DURALAR .005 25X40 SHEET" , I saw that an other option it would be 3M.

I'm gathering necessary material. Now I have the good clamp densitometer (from RX service), a precission luxometer, and the Stouffer.

I've calibrated most of films I use (TMX, HP5, CMS20, Fomapan 100), now I'm to calibrate paper with different grades... Mostly I'm ready, just I need the Mylar, for the moment I'll do what you suggest, I'll make the visual registration while I prepare the suitable gear.

I feel that I will go forward with that. I know very well that scan+PS+lightjet is a powerful/stringht way, but as I learn new concepts I'm starting to value what darkroom crafting is.

[Drew Wiley]

There is no single silver bullet. Masking is just another tool, or rather, specialized tool kit. I got into it heavily because it was necessary for quality color prints. But I enjoy darkroom work in general, so sometimes use it for black and white printing too. Some things can still be done more precisely in the darkroom than digitally, though probably not as quickly. I'd prefer the look of true optical prints in general, esp from large format, but it doesn't make much difference, since I
want the tactile experience all the way from the shot to the printing session, right down to mounting and framing. I want direct control of every aspect. But when
you get one of those big sheets of mylar, cut the sheet down into smaller pieces just slightly larger than your film, and then inspect each of them on a lightbox for blemishes (uneven areas, crinkles). Save the best sheets for negs with open skies, soft portraits, etc, where you can't tolerate any minor density disruptions.
The so-so sheets can be used for experimentation or images with a lot of complicated texture. And yes, you've identified the correct Duralar product. 5-mil
is much more tolerant of handling than 3-mil, and diffuses better.