Boosting contrast with extended development, your choice of film.

[GoodOldNorm]

Which 4x5 sheet film works well in low contrast light. I am considering doing a little project making photographs of tree roots. In the poor light I will have scenes with a subject brightness range of 3 or 4 stops. I can extend development to increase the contrast with any film, but which films give good separation in the mid-tones at box speed/with 40-50% extra development?
I guess what I am asking is, what 4x5 film can match Ilford panf+50 asa for contrast.

[John Layton]

I've had great luck with FP-4...boosting subject brightness range simply by virtue of reciprocity failure - and then ignoring the recommended pull back of development time...but instead either processing "normally" or adding up to 50% to my "normal" developing times. Works like a charm...assuming that "poor" light allows exposure times in the 30 second (with a bit of plus development) to three minute (with normal development) range.

Here are a couple of photos taken in fading light (carbonate forms, Death Valley)...each a three minute exposure (based on original reading indicating one minute) on FP-4, observed SBR of around three stops, but expanded by a combination of reciprocity failure, extended (compensating) exposure, and "normal" development:

211302 (wonderful sharpness of this not translating here)

211303

[Alan9940]

How about Kodak's TMax films? Easy contrast manipulation.

[Eric Woodbury]

In order of the amount of contrast you can build: Ilford FP4, Ilford Ortho, Kodak Tech Pan (obsolete).

Use Wimberley's WD2H+ developer for FP4. Normal Plus 4 development is available with this combo. Lots of shadow contrast, more than any other developer I've tested.

[GoodOldNorm]

In order of the amount of contrast you can build: Ilford FP4, Ilford Ortho, Kodak Tech Pan (obsolete).

Use Wimberley's WD2H+ developer for FP4. Normal Plus 4 development is available with this combo. Lots of shadow contrast, more than any other developer I've tested.

Thank you for the heads up on wd2h+ I found the formula for wd2h, has the WD2H + formula ever been published?

[Willie]

Kodak T-Max 100 has excellent reciprocity characteristics and with managed development you can work the contrast all over the place. Low light images and large format lenses might force you into choosing the film for its reciprocity.

[neil poulsen]

I use HP5+ with D76, and I seem to do OK with expansions that I use. But, there might well be a better combination.

As a comment, if one's extending contrast by increasing development time, then one needs to expose for the shadows, versus using an overall meter reading. This will help achieve the needed (expanded) contrast with the least increase in development time.

Operationally, this means selecting a shadow area where detail is needed, meter that area, and then decrease the exposure read on the meter by two stops.

[Eric Woodbury]

Formula for WD2H+ is in the 3rd Ed. of Darkroom Cookbook. Not sure if there is a difference between 'plus' and 'non-plus'.

EDIT: My copy of DR Cookbook forgot 60 gr pyro. Verify.

[Bill Burk]

This is 35mm but I am sure the TMAX-100 sheet film behaves the same way. Your straight line section is so clean at every contrast level, that you just need to expose enough to get up on the line, then develop as long as you want for the contrast you need.

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

[Vaughn]

I'll second using RF to increase contrast -- which rules out TMax, etc.

And I have given well-exposed negatives a slight bleach to deepen the shadows followed by selenium toning to boost the highlights. Perhaps something like that would come in useful if you have a neg or two that end up a little shy on contrast.

[GoodOldNorm]

I'll second using RF to increase contrast -- which rules out TMax, etc.

And I have given well-exposed negatives a slight bleach to deepen the shadows followed by selenium toning to boost the highlights. Perhaps something like that would come in useful if you have a neg or two that end up a little shy on contrast.
All good stuff, thank you Vaughn and all who have taken the time to share your knowledge.

[Jim Noel]

Yesterday I Googled WD2H+ and the first site up was a PDF of the 3rd edition of the cookbook. I have no idea where it came from.
When I am in real need of HL density, I tone the negative in Sepia. More increase than with selenium.

[Vaughn]

Yesterday I Googled WD2H+ and the first site up was a PDF of the 3rd edition of the cookbook. I have no idea where it came from.
When I am in real need of HL density, I tone the negative in Sepia. More increase than with selenium.

Do you find your low values dropping a little with sepia toning (seems to happen with prints a little)? Actually would help to boost contrast...along the lines of my bleaching then selenium toning. Sepia toning would preserve the negative!

[esearing]

You likely want to do a test using a 4x5 step wedge or a low contrast backyard scene. Develop one sheet normally then another at 50% more time. Then print both using various grade filters (assuming you use VC papers). You may find you can expand 3 stops using just printing filters vs trying to expand the negative. I like the way FP4 expands in zones 4-7 with Pyrocat M but most of the time I only do a 10%-15% increase in development time and work with the blue filter more. You can also try using a print developer like Ansco 130 at 1:10 for 10-12 minutes for film. IF you tend to scan then it is more important to have all the tones captured than to have a contrasty negative, so the RF method works.