Taking a class and now totally baffled

[Ohio]

And the images I'm capturing suck. If I do what I think will work, I usually get negatives I think I can work with in the darkroom. If I follow my instructor's direction, everything is not great. I think I may need a different instructor because we are not communicating well, though I freely admit it may just be me. Regardless...

I have been considering a series featuring breast cancer surgical scars. I have a model (my fabulous spouse) who will put up with my testing different stocks, processing methods, light set-ups, etc., so I'm very lucky. This is at least a two-year project to get some baseline processing and printing competence, followed by a lot of practicing and messing up, etc.

So far I think

1. I'll probably use my Norma (aka Norma Desmond because why not) when I do the final captures. I won't use 35mm---something happens to me when I use my 35mm camera. I go all photojournalist, which is great for some things, but that isn't what I'm after here. I like the deliberation Norma Desmond requires and I want that big negative.
2. I may very well try platinum or photogravure processes once I can consistently process and print the kind of images I want to create. (I am still exploring what flavor of image I want---at first I wanted a sort of Avendon style, then more of a glowing, luminescent-y quality, then Studek still life, and now maybe I'll end up pushing TX400 to the breaking point for grain and grittiness.)

But that's in the future. Right now I'm trying to expose the image in a way to expand the dynamic range. My lighting is very subdued---golden hour outdoors because we live in the sticks and no one can see boobs if anyone is walking around without a shirt on. Using Fuji Acros Neopan 100, I captured a 35mm roll of images to get started. I processed in D76 at normal time and agitation.

I printed a contact sheet and even struck a print. BTW, everyone in the class was working in the darkroom and got very very quiet as the RC paper moved from tray to tray. It was weird. I didn't realize people would get weird over a boob, but then, I forgot that with breast cancer, people focus on the boob and don't see the cancer. I think they think I'm a big perv now in a totally not cool way. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyway, I took the contact sheet and negatives to my instructor who said images like the one I want to create are hard to do because they're :white on white." I think that means the subject's skin tones don't vary a lot or the changes in tone are really subtle. I should consider two different approaches---one was diluting the D76 1:3 and process according to the appropriate chart, and then my instructor suggested a second process but walked away before I could confirm what I was told, which has been a pretty typical experience for me in this class.

So I'm going to do another session using Norma Desmond and TX400 (which is what I have). I'm going to process the 4x5 film using D76, 1:3, 68F, first full minute gentle agitation and then agitate 5 second every 30 seconds following the processing time chart on digitaltruth.com. Does anyone have a better processing chart or better technical spec that I should follow with these Kodak products?

I'd like to do a second test by changing the development time. My instructor had muttered something in an earlier class about subtracting 10% from the normal processing time but I think that was in regard to lowering highlights, like a bright sky in a landscape. So would I extend development time to get a bit more contrast? There's something about this that just doesn't feel right but I'm doubting myself right now.

Does anyone have some ideas about approaching the film processing that would help me extend the dynamic range of the image? My goal is to learn how to consistently process an image like this and have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get. Then I'll move on to learning about the other processes as pertains to this project.

Many thanks for any help. I was so excited to be doing film processing and darkroom work again but it's been a shitty experience and I'm really discouraged. I am stubborn, though, so I'm plowing all that into "I'll show you, you crappy instructor" and "fuck it, who cares what anyone else thinks?" to help myself keep going. When the going gets tough, the tough use swear words. Or something.

[Tin Can]

Love Sunset Boulevard, my last wife did too. Rest in Peace, Marnie

Just process your film 'normal like' and get that consistent, then get fancy in a few years

Normal will give you great results if you let it be...

[Peter De Smidt]

This type of thing has been talked about a lot here. My recommendation hasn't changed. Especially at the beginning, doing a full zone-system style test is a great idea. It will save a lot of pain later. The system in the Zone VI Manual is excellent, although I prefer 1/3rd stop increments to 1/2 increments, but that's easy to implement.

[David Schaller]

I don't know what you mean when you say "extend the dynamic range of the image." If you are doing a closeup shot of skin tones, you can place the skin tones on whatever zone you want, and develop for that. You are going to have to do the testing yourself.

This would be a relatively quick way to get in the ballpark. Take at least four sheets of the shot you want to do, then develop one at a time for the suggested time, then 2 minutes less and two minutes more, and then proof the negatives. Use the fourth sheet if you want to add or knock off a minute from the time you decide on.

[Oren Grad]

Another caveat: there is no TX400 sheet film. Tri-X sheet film has an ISO-rated speed of 320. More important, it uses a different emulsion compared to Tri-X roll film and has a very different characteristic curve (tonal scale). You cannot use Tri-X roll film to learn about the behavior of Tri-X sheet film, especially if you are still unclear about basic concepts of exposure and development and how to interpret your results. Acros, in turn, is another kettle of fish entirely, and is not available at all in sheet film at this point.

To avoid confusing yourself, choose a film that you will use for 4x5 and run your tests using that film in 4x5 format. There will be plenty of opportunity to try other films later on, once you've gotten the basics under control.

[Gary Samson]

Here are my suggestions:
1. I would stay with Kodak D76 straight and rate the film at box speed.
2. Use an incident meter to measure the intensity of light falling on your subject.
3. Make sure you calculate bellows extension to compensate for light loss if you are making closeup images of the surgical scar.
4. Determine the proper development time by exposing at least three sheets of film under identical lighting conditions and then process one sheet at the normal time, one sheet at normal+20% and one sheet at normal+40%.
5. One of those negatives should be close to what you are looking for and you can then fine tune the time for your project negatives.

[Ohio]

Thanks all.


Here are my suggestions:
1. I would stay with Kodak D76 straight and rate the film at box speed.
2. Use an incident meter to measure the intensity of light falling on your subject.
3. Make sure you calculate bellows extension to compensate for light loss if you are making closeup images of the surgical scar.
4. Determine the proper development time by exposing at least three sheets of film under identical lighting conditions and then process one sheet at the normal time, one sheet at normal+20% and one sheet at normal+40%.
5. One of those negatives should be close to what you are looking for and you can then fine tune the time for your project negatives.

Thank you, Gary Samson, for these steps. I think I may add the 1:3 dilution thing just to see the effect as well. So I'll capture eight versions of the same image using the same light and same set-up. I'll process a pair at normal, normal +20% , normal +40%, and then with 1:3 dilution and extended processing time.

So now I have a plan.

[Ulophot]

Hi, Ohio. From your post, I, too, have difficulty understanding exactly what kind of results you are experiencing and how comfortable you are with basic exposure and development controls. Some of the advice above is a good starting point, most likely, so I don't wish to confuse the issue. I will add just the following.
If you're photographing at golden hour, you may be using relatively hard light frontally, if the sun is still direct, or you may be using soft light which has much less directionality. In either case, you may be photographing a subject with a luminance range of only a couple of stops, depending on various factors, including how dark the scars are relative to the subject's surrounding skin. If that is the case, your prints are likely very flat, whether white-on-white or some value of gray on gray. You would probably do well to go toward increased development time, which will increase the difference in tonality between scar and surrounding skin. You may find that taking the incident exposure mentioned above and then underexposing a stop, followed by increased development, improves this tonal separation a bit. Additional contrast may be added by choosing a higher paper contrast.

[Jim Noel]

Here are my suggestions:
1. I would stay with Kodak D76 straight and rate the film at box speed.
2. Use an incident meter to measure the intensity of light falling on your subject.
3. Make sure you calculate bellows extension to compensate for light loss if you are making closeup images of the surgical scar.
4. Determine the proper development time by exposing at least three sheets of film under identical lighting conditions and then process one sheet at the normal time, one sheet at normal+20% and one sheet at normal+40%.
5. One of those negatives should be close to what you are looking for and you can then fine tune the time for your project negatives.

This is a good start, BUT will not give you appropriate skin tones. Development will not give you appropriate skin tones if your exposure is not correct .Since you need contrast,switch to FP4+. Take your meter reading which will place the skin on ZOne V, it needs to be on VI, or VI 1/2. SO take the reading ,then give one stop more light by opening the aperture, or slowing down the shutter. My choice in such situations is open the aperture.

[koraks]

I'm with Philip/Ulophot on this. I'd also consider using a film that easily builds contrast, so not necessarily any 400 speed film. FP4+ or, heck, even fomapan 100 or 200. Place Caucasian skin tones at something like middle grey or a smidgeon less in exposure. Then develop for 50% extra or even more, up to 100%, especially if you want to pull pt/pd or other alt prints. I wouldn't go the intaglio/photogravure route; that's a very deep hole and odds are you'll get stuck in mastering a process and find yourself many years down the line before you can make the prints you want. Try simple silver gelatin and only make things complicated if it proves fundamentally inadequate.

[Willie]

If you are looking at expansion to try for a bit more contrast take a good look at TMax 100. It can record way more than the paper will print. Is very good with plus development and subtle tonal changes with White on White subject matter.

[Gary Samson]

This is a good start, BUT will not give you appropriate skin tones. Development will not give you appropriate skin tones if your exposure is not correct .Since you need contrast,switch to FP4+. Take your meter reading which will place the skin on ZOne V, it needs to be on VI, or VI 1/2. SO take the reading ,then give one stop more light by opening the aperture, or slowing down the shutter. My choice in such situations is open the aperture.

While I think that Ilford FP4+ is a good suggestion for expanding tones, I would not assume that all of the subjects Ohio will be photographing are caucasian with skin tones placed on zone VI. Once Ohio's EI for his film is established and he has locked down a development time, metering with an incident light meter will keep values consistent no matter whether the subject's skin is light or dark.

[Ohio]

My apologies for not being clear.

I have experience using light meters. I have experience exposing correctly, and with lighting and camera operation. I am a moviemaker but the last time I worked with film was as a photojournalist thirty years ago. I took this class as a refresher and it's been extremely frustrating, to the point where I was getting frozen with doubt. I think I'll just follow Gary's recommendations. (I'll also hold back some undeveloped images so I can adjust based on my first round of development.) I'm looking forward to trying this because it's an unfreezing.

I don't have a problem being creative and making decisions, etc., but this has been absolutely bizarre. It's like asking someone if a sentence makes sense and getting the response, "I like lasagne." Only it'd be like, "May I ask what you meant earlier about changing the film processing time to get more tones?" and getting, "Ansel Adams liked lasagne."

I'm kidding, but only slightly.

And I miswrote---I have a now-open box of TMax 100. Big difference. And thanks, Willie, for the recommendation---you were probably typing as I was loading the film holders.

[esearing]

More dilution requires longer development times to get same contrast. To increase negative contrast you have to develop even longer. So if your subject has EVs in a range like 10.2-12.2. that is only 2 stops. You can put those EVs on zone 4-6 but then expand them during development to zones 4-7(or8) . Or develop normally for normal 2stop density contrast, then increase print contrast using variable contrast filters with higher grade numbers.

Some of us might put those light tones on zone 7-9 then develop normally because it gives that dense negative for brighter tones (like clouds tones).

[Jim Michael]

If you are paying for instruction your instructor owes you clear explanations of concepts. The “white on white” reference sounds like the white tones being so far up on the log curve there is little tonal separation.

[Ohio]

More dilution requires longer development times to get same contrast. To increase negative contrast you have to develop even longer. So if your subject has EVs in a range like 10.2-12.2. that is only 2 stops. You can put those EVs on zone 4-6 but then expand them during development to zones 4-7(or8) . Or develop normally for normal 2stop density contrast, then increase print contrast using variable contrast filters with higher grade numbers.

Some of us might put those light tones on zone 7-9 then develop normally because it gives that dense negative for brighter tones (like clouds tones).

What you write about cloud tones makes sense to me and is quite helpful. My gut says this is what the instructor meant but either really didn't articulate or I completely missed it.

Also, the thing about dilution +time. If I'm understanding you, to expand the contrast, then 3:1 dilution + longer time, say, +20% and then +40% of the digitaltruth chart time. So if I want to expand the tonal range, the chart says TMax 100 can be processed at 1:3 dilution for 17 minutes, I could process test images at 17 minutes +20%, and then do a second test at 1:3 for 17 minutes + 40%.

And I understand what you're saying about developing normally and using variable contrast filters. That's exactly what I planned to do with the 35mm negatives---try the basic print procedures before moving further.

Thanks, especially for the clouds---that's really useful.

And yes, Jim Michael, one would think the instructor would explain and yet...

[Nigel Smith]

I could process test images at 17 minutes +20%, and then do a second test at 1:3 for 17 minutes + 40%.

I would add 20% to the +20% time not 40% to the base time.

[MartinP]

To get a clearer separation of skintones vs. scarring you could also add the complications of colour-filters. If the scarring is purple-ish on pale skin, try a yellow filter for example, or the oft-suggested (for white skin-tones on panchro film) yellow-green. If your spouse has darker skin and a darker scar then it might be harder to separate the tones involved of course. The general idea would be to keep the relevant tones away from the shoulder of the curve (or the toe I suppose) as that could make the film representation of the tones have less separation than reality, rather than neutral or 'true'.

[Ohio]

I would add 20% to the +20% time not 40% to the base time.

Nigel Smith, may I ask why you would use that approach?




To get a clearer separation of skintones vs. scarring you could also add the complications of colour-filters. If the scarring is purple-ish on pale skin, try a yellow filter for example, or the oft-suggested (for white skin-tones on panchro film) yellow-green. If your spouse has darker skin and a darker scar then it might be harder to separate the tones involved of course. The general idea would be to keep the relevant tones away from the shoulder of the curve (or the toe I suppose) as that could make the film representation of the tones have less separation than reality, rather than neutral or 'true'.

MartinP, filtres are a path I want to explore for this project. I've used filters for other stuff but there's a lot of testing I'd like to do with filtering, too. Funny you bring up the idea of the tones being neutral or "true," because I'm wondering about that as well---should her scars run like lightning across her skin? Should they be subtle? I don't know yet and I'm ok with that.

And practically speaking, I think I'm trying the processing tests first because they're the part that I've done the least. I've pushed and pulled film but never done this kind of processing for creative reasons.

[Nigel Smith]

Nigel Smith, may I ask why you would use that approach?


I like adding a set percentage from the last used amount. Adding 40% to the base is 16.7% more than your +20% time. If that's not enough, what's your next test... +60% of base? That will mean an increase of about 8% over 'my' +20 +20 time. So the separation is getting smaller. Based on what you're trying to achieve, I think I'd want to make the subsequent tests somewhat linear from the earlier test. You may decide the last test is too much and run a final test half way between the two. Just IMO of course :)

[esearing]

Nigel's explanation is correct - it takes more time to extend the contrast from N+1 to N+2, but for initial ball park testing you can used fixed periods. You must also factor in dilute developer exhaustion for long periods of time and your agitation scheme comes into play with highlight tones. When I did my tests of Pyrocat and EMA dilution I eventually arrived at development time ranges not fixed times. N 21-23 , N+ 24-25 N+1 26-30. You can always decide to do a little expansion or a lot of expansion as you gain experience, then your decisions in the field at time of exposure become more relevant.

Things to ask yourself:
Is your subject brightness range or EV range 2 or 3 or 5 or 8 stops - what would you do differently
Where do you place your darkest tones and where do the highlights then fall - Why
Will it be necessary to expand contrast for middle tones and yet try to maintain highlights
Are you processing a single 4x5 sheet vs a Roll (8x10 equivalent, 4 4x5 sheets) and does the amount of developer in your tank need to be the same for both?
Agitation - less / more when to use which
Temperature - are 20+ minute times too long for your patience level? Maybe 72 vs 68 is better for you but what does that do to your developer (some like it hot)
What contrast do you even like in a negative - your tastes will change and it may depend on whether you wet print or scan.
Does the film you chose match your vision - would FP4+work better than Delta/Tmax edginess. 100 vs 400 speed and why?
Then you can consider the tonal separation using filters, lens flare properties due to coated not coated, fstop selection , light fall off on wider lenses, and so much more.

[Ohio]

Thanks for the explanation, Nigel Smith. Much appreciated.

esearing, I understand what you're saying.

I'm giving myself two years to feel like I'm ready to do the series I envision and am comfortable with not knowing if two years is even enough time. I'm a longform sort of person. In photography, process matters---the how and why of it, for me, anyway, so your example questions are good ones to consider. I especially liked the one about patience, as in, do I have enough to manage 20+ minutes. Ironic considering I'm working in 4x5 specifically because I get to slow down and consider what I'm doing and why, and feel my feelings and all that.

I am not by nature a patient person, as in, instant gratification isn't fast enough. And yet I work in longform as a novelist and motion picture, and have been quite smitten with 4x5 film photography. Weird.

[Gary Beasley]

A very old technique in portraiture to darken skin tones, used mainly for masculine portraits is the use of a green filter. This may accentuate scarring a bit too much so a light green may be a good fit if you can find it.

[Ohio]

Thanks, Gary Beasley. Filters are on the list for a variety of experimentation and I'll keep this one in mind.