High SBR: Comparing D-23 1:1 vs. Pyrocat-HD EMA

[tundra]

This was a subject with deep shadows on III and highlights on X. Scan of Agfapan APX100 processed as follows:

D-23 1:1 - APX 100 ASA 50 - 1 min prewash 30 sec agitation, 5 sec agitation every 30 sec thereafter. 7 1/2 min total time @68F

Pyrocat-HD: APX 100 ASA 100 - 1.5:1:150 - 3 min prewash, 2 min vigorous agitation, 15sec agitation @12, 21 min - 30 min total time

These are scans of the negatives and are not perfectly matched but they show that both easily held the entire dynamic range nicely, Albeit the D-23 loses a stop of film speed.


213581213582


What is interesting to me about this is that neither of the negatives in question required going down the expose-contracted development rabbit hole.

D-23 naturally compensates the highlights, and EMA - an expanded development method - protects both the mid-tone local contrast and reigns in the highlights.

I did a similar comparison with negatives done in divided Pyrocat-HD and Semistand Pyrocat-HD - with similar good results, at least from an initial scan of the negatives. (Nothing really counts for me until I silver print for final judgment.)

David Kachel has made the point in public and also in a private email to me that Zone system got contraction all wrong. If you do it the Ansel Adams way, you get muddy mid-tone local contrast. I think he is entirely right in this matter. Beyond the basics of composition and good focus, I have a basic model I want designed into all my negatives:

Proper shadow exposure
Preservation or expansion of local contrast in the dominant part of the image
Protecting the highlights from blocking

Having now explored (Semi)stand, EMA, divided development, and a compensating developer, I am entirely confident that it is possible to manage the last two of these very directly. One need only note which technique you are planning to develop with because it does affect film speed.

So, all I now worry about is the first - making sure I give the shadows sufficient exposure. This is the #1 sin I see committed with many negatives (my own included). I no longer care if the highlights fall on X or even above - these techniques solve that problem. Instead, I make sure my shadows are properly and fully placed and exposed.

As a general matter, if the dominant local contrast is OK in the scene, there is no reason to use low agitation techniques (unless getting full film speed is important for some reason). In the scenario where there is a high SBR and good local contrast, a compensating developer like D-23 1:1 or divided Pyrocat-HD is all you need. Low agitation is primarily indicated if you: A) Want to crank up local contrast and/or B) Want to exploit the adjacency effects these techniques produce.

It's also worth noting that these techniques will not solve the problem that a negative holds far more range of light than any paper could possibly reproduce. What these techniques do provide, though, is more choices during the printing session about which range of light you want to reproduce in which sections of the print.


Anyway, that's my story for the moment and I'd love to hear the experiences of others ...

[Steve Sherman]

This was a subject with deep shadows on III and highlights on X. Scan of Agfapan APX100 processed as follows:

D-23 1:1 - APX 100 ASA 50 - 1 min prewash 30 sec agitation, 5 sec agitation every 30 sec thereafter. 7 1/2 min total time @68F

Pyrocat-HD: APX 100 ASA 100 - 1.5:1:150 - 3 min prewash, 2 min vigorous agitation, 15sec agitation @12, 21 min - 30 min total time

These are scans of the negatives and are not perfectly matched but they show that both easily held the entire dynamic range nicely, Albeit the D-23 loses a stop of film speed.


213581213582


What is interesting to me about this is that neither of the negatives in question required going down the expose-contracted development rabbit hole.

D-23 naturally compensates the highlights, and EMA - an expanded development method - protects both the mid-tone local contrast and reigns in the highlights.

I did a similar comparison with negatives done in divided Pyrocat-HD and Semistand Pyrocat-HD - with similar good results, at least from an initial scan of the negatives. (Nothing really counts for me until I silver print for final judgment.)

David Kachel has made the point in public and also in a private email to me that Zone system got contraction all wrong. If you do it the Ansel Adams way, you get muddy mid-tone local contrast. I think he is entirely right in this matter. Beyond the basics of composition and good focus, I have a basic model I want designed into all my negatives:

Proper shadow exposure
Preservation or expansion of local contrast in the dominant part of the image
Protecting the highlights from blocking

Having now explored (Semi)stand, EMA, divided development, and a compensating developer, I am entirely confident that it is possible to manage the last two of these very directly. One need only note which technique you are planning to develop with because it does affect film speed.

So, all I now worry about is the first - making sure I give the shadows sufficient exposure. This is the #1 sin I see committed with many negatives (my own included). I no longer care if the highlights fall on X or even above - these techniques solve that problem. Instead, I make sure my shadows are properly and fully placed and exposed.

As a general matter, if the dominant local contrast is OK in the scene, there is no reason to use low agitation techniques (unless getting full film speed is important for some reason). In the scenario where there is a high SBR and good local contrast, a compensating developer like D-23 1:1 or divided Pyrocat-HD is all you need. Low agitation is primarily indicated if you: A) Want to crank up local contrast and/or B) Want to exploit the adjacency effects these techniques produce.

It's also worth noting that these techniques will not solve the problem that a negative holds far more range of light than any paper could possibly reproduce. What these techniques do provide, though, is more choices during the printing session about which range of light you want to reproduce in which sections of the print.


Anyway, that's my story for the moment and I'd love to hear the experiences of others ...

It's nice to see others pursuing a Minimal Agitation form of film processing. Since 2003 this type of film processing is the only manner in which I have processed my sheet film. So, I believe I can speak with some experience on the topic. Many of your findings are on point. There are, however, several items I don't completely find to be true in my experience.

#1, almost never is local contrast adequate in a Normal contrast scene, therefore, the Minimal Agitation technique can alter and enhance those relationships without compromising the high values that are associated with Plus development. If by chance the final rendering of mid-tone contrast needs to be reduced, a simple addition of Green-light in the printing process with modern Multi-Contrast papers accomplishes that.

#2, I have had conversations with Mr. Kachel regarding his philosophy, while in theory, his approach is valid, it does not take into account the difference between a film's characteristic curve compared to that of Multi-Contrast paper's potential curve. In other words and in my theory, I forsake compressing tonalities by way of development contraction so those same mid-tones can be exaggerated in a much more aggressive manner by way of MC papers. Adjacency Effects is the exact reason mid-tones can "survive" that much compression. So, while, it seems backward or unnecessary to "compress" negative tonalities only to turn around and "expand" those same tonalities in the final printing process. The steeper curve of MC papers brings those mid-tones to greater vibrancy, unlike that of simple higher negative densities. Similar to the end justifies the means." As the author states, nothing really counts until the final silver print is in hand, and that is the exact place that I speak from.

#3, Just how much tonality a negative can "hold/record" is mostly associated with Adams's Zone System suggesting around 10 zones, that's more a product of Silver papers of the times and how much contraction the film can endure. Films have been tested to record 14-15 zones of contrast before their limits are realized. So, compressing that much contrast produces an extremely flat negative, yet, with Minimal Agitation and the exaggeration of tones by way of MC papers the limits are pushed to areas many film photographers are simply not aware exist.

[tundra]

Great observations Steve. I am well aware that film can hold 14-ish stops of light - I've done it myself. It is my philosophy to try and get as much onto the negative as I can and only later - in the printing phase - select the tonalities I want via split VC printing. You cannot print what isn't there.

What I have come to realize is that even that is a bit limiting. THE central issue is local contrast. Once you master composition, focus, and shadow exposure, the problem to be solved in every negative is preservation of local contrast while managing highlights from getting blocked.

In my direct observation and testing, EMA is one of the techniques that does this well. So does Semistand. Stand does not work at all with any consistency with modern films. But I think compensating development like D-23 and divided Pyrocat-HD also can be powerful tools in their own right.

[Jim Noel]

A good comparison, but since Agfapan is no longer available, I would like to see similar info regarding more commonly used films such as FP4+, HP5+, Plus X and Tri-X.

[tundra]

Well, Plus-X isn't available in 4x5 anyway, anymore ... except for the 100 sheets I have frozen. :)

I think these other films would show similar results. I've done a fair bit of low agitation testing with FP4+ and the results are quite good.

Tri-X is a bit more problematic. First of all, there is no single Tri-X formulation. Sheet film Tri-X is a very different beast than 35mm Tri-X. The former is a long toe film that was originally more oriented for pro studio shooters. The latter is a shorter toe, general purpose film. I have done limited low agitation development with both. The 35mm responded beautifully. The 4x5 TXT worked well too, but it absorbed a LOT of Pyrocat-HD stain. However, these were not carefully controlled tests, so I'd have to do more with TXT to really draw a meaningful conclusion.

[esearing]

(unless getting full film speed is important for some reason).

If the situation calls for a 400 speed film, why would I want to shoot it at EI 150-200 and not have those extra two stops over my normal 100 speed film? HP5+ @400 with Pyrocat-M is about the best I have found to avoid mud in the middle, but have to careful with shadow detail or I just end up burning it in during printing. Bergger 400 I have not found the best time yet, but I haven't really tested it fully either, it just may not work well with staining developers. Delta 400 in 135 is always beautiful but I rarely shoot 135 anymore.

[Steve Sherman]

Serious photography is many things to many photographers, therefore much of what happens on these forums is of little consequence.

For me, in spite of the EMA method of film processing being an extremely delicate set of relationships, I don't consider myself to be a technical person. I learned what was necessary to carry out what is most important to me. I'm a visual person who greatly enjoys the large film processes and the challenges it presents. That doesn't change the fact that many times I form an image in my mind easily accomplished with a cell phone but a hopeless exercise in futility with a view camera. The film and darkroom photographer always seems to win that battle!

Back around '97 I switched from HC 110 to PMK and saw an immediate improvement in my negatives. What I detested at the time was a new learning curve over what I had accomplished with HC 110 and Tri-X. I want to make photographs, not test the process of making photographs. All that matters to me is to make the best-looking silver image that I possibly can. Within reason, $$ is not at the top of my priorities.

Ten or so years later the film and silver printing techniques were second nature to me, little mystery was left in what I could accomplish in the darkroom. I believe by creating SOPs, standard operating procedures, or Priorities got me to where I wanted to go as quickly as possible. Those priorities are Tonality, Mid-tone separation, and managing the Mid-Tone separation in Silver prints, and more recently using only Ilford products, they cater to LF photographers better than anyone, I choose to support them completely.

A medium-speed film is known to produce better tonal separation than low or high-speed films. If my photography style was in line with Brett Weston, the tonality of the final print would not be that big a factor, I embrace his father Edward's tonalities, hence the FP 4 film medium speed is best for my application.

Mid-Tone separation in the final Silver image is the single most difficult area of a Silver print to control, hence EMA or Semi-Stand film processing. The Minimal Agitation technique significantly alters a film's characteristic curve, both creating a shorter Toe, longer, and Steeper Straight line (where the mid-tones live) while the PyroCat chemistry separates the high values as well as any developer. I believe the so-called traits of one film over another are greatly reduced because of Minimal Agitation methods of film processing. The technique plays directly into separating all tonalities better than conventional methods of processing film. The inconvenience of time to process a single sheet of film is far outweighed by managing mid-tone separation. People often say, "what if I don't like as much Mid-Tone contrast as you do." Easy, simply add a bit more Green or Soft contrast filtration to the printing formula with Multi-Contrast paper.

My interest in this post is not to pound my chest, rather to hear the words Standard Operating Procedures, wherever your interest lies in B&W photography. Nothing at all wrong with checking out many different films/developers to see if they play to one's likes, simply identify where you want to go and move forward.

Purely by coincidence, there is an in-depth article I wrote for an online resource that is being edited by the publisher as I write this post. The article details the historical as well as the evolution of my discovery in 2003 about Semi-Stand and other forms of Minimal Agitation. I am sure to publicize that link here on the LF forum when it is complete.

Cheers,

[tundra]

If the situation calls for a 400 speed film, why would I want to shoot it at EI 150-200 and not have those extra two stops over my normal 100 speed film? HP5+ @400 with Pyrocat-M is about the best I have found to avoid mud in the middle, but have to careful with shadow detail or I just end up burning it in during printing. Bergger 400 I have not found the best time yet, but I haven't really tested it fully either, it just may not work well with staining developers. Delta 400 in 135 is always beautiful but I rarely shoot 135 anymore.

There is no such thing as a "right" workflow. Each of us works in our own way and get desired outcomes. I think its more important that we each find a workflow that is consistent and repeatably gives us what we want.

While getting full film speed may be desirable, there are two downsides to Semistand and EMA: 1) It takes a long time to develop film and 2) Not everyone likes the adjacency effects this technique produces - at least not for all subjects. I have also found (and I suspect Steve Sherman would disagree here) that, if a scene has good mid-tone separation and contrast and you use low agitation techniques, you can get a sort of cartoon-like
quality in the mid-tones, but this happens fairly infrequently.

There are also subjects where you want a long exposure - moving water leaps to mind - where a high ASA gets in the way.

Finally, different films have different characteristic curves. I haven't used HP5+ in ages but I seem to recall that, like Tri-X sheet film, it has a lower contrast HD curve than, say, FP4+ (I may be wrong about this, I am reciting from fuzzy memory here.)

[Steve Sherman]

There is no such thing as a "right" workflow. Each of us works in our own way and get desired outcomes. I think its more important that we each find a workflow that is consistent and repeatably gives us what we want.

While getting full film speed may be desirable, there are two downsides to Semistand and EMA: 1) It takes a long time to develop film and 2) Not everyone likes the adjacency effects this technique produces - at least not for all subjects. I have also found (and I suspect Steve Sherman would disagree here) that, if a scene has good mid-tone separation and contrast and you use low agitation techniques, you can get a sort of cartoon-like
quality in the mid-tones, but this happens fairly infrequently.

There are also subjects where you want a long exposure - moving water leaps to mind - where a high ASA gets in the way.

Finally, different films have different characteristic curves. I haven't used HP5+ in ages but I seem to recall that, like Tri-X sheet film, it has a lower contrast HD curve than, say, FP4+ (I may be wrong about this, I am reciting from fuzzy memory here.)

I would not characterize as disagreeing. Merely that the
Technique has become very intuitive for me. Simply adding more Green exposure in the printing formula goes directly at reducing mid-tone contrast if it is deemed too much.
In the article I talk about being criticized by a big name LF photog when comparing my prints to his, so, yes the technique can be taken too far. Because Silver printing is the most contracted process, you want options. This type processing, for my workflow provides superior flexibility in the final rendering.

[Vaughn]

"The Mud in the Middle"...I like that. A combination to avoid that and get good middle tone separation was suggested by the late Terry King; FP4+ and Ilford Universal PQ Developer. Primarily the advice was towards negatives for platinum printing. And I do find it an excellent combination and I may go back and do a better comparison of negs/prints using it and those using PyrocatHD, with mid-tones in mind. I have also used it to get a higher DR for carbon printing. I am always expanding the SBR, so that is a critical difference between my needs and silver gelatin printers.

[Drew Wiley]

There are a number of opinions in several previous posts I would disagree with, according to both densitometry and lots of actual experience printing. But I have no time to go into details at the moment. Sufficient to say, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I happen to think it can be done more efficiently than in some of the manners already expressed.

[tundra]

I would not characterize as disagreeing. Merely that the
Technique has become very intuitive for me. Simply adding more Green exposure in the printing formula goes directly at reducing mid-tone contrast if it is deemed too much.

In principle, I agree with you. The problem is that if you are doing split VC printing for selective local contrast control by split dodge/burns, there are some images where being able to control a green light burn is too tricky - say when you have a lot of tight geometric figures in a very small piece of the image. I much prefer to - where possible - get the local contrast right on the negative so as to avoid complex dodge and burn patterns.




Because Silver printing is the most contracted process, you want options

100% agree with this. You cannot print what is not in the negative. That means the Photographing Me needs to produce negatives that gives the Printing Me the maximum set of choices as to what ends up in the final print. To that end managing shadow exposure, local contrast, and controlling highlight blocking are all about preserving as much information as possible.

As I mentioned, I have shot negatives into 14 stop SBRs and held the entire range (with PMK notably, before I added D-23 and Pyrocat to my arsenal). Were all the inter-tone relationship preserved? No, but the negatives still have far more information that the 5-6 stops of range silver paper can reproduce. The whole art of printing then becomes how one chooses to map the huge range of the negative onto the paper.

In this regard, I think St. Ansel's metaphor of the negative being the score and the print being the performance is a little off the mark. It's more like the negative is the score and the print is a performance by a Junior High School orchestra :)

[Drew Wiley]

Too bad St Ansel never mastered masking. I don't routinely use it; but it can be an incredible optional took kit when needed.

[tundra]

Too bad St Ansel never mastered masking. I don't routinely use it; but it can be an incredible optional took kit when needed.

I've not tried it either, but I am led to believe the adjacency effects of low agitation development provide much the same results.

[Drew Wiley]

They're quite different, actually. And note that I mentioned masking in reference to being a whole tool kit in its own right, not just a single method. It can be tailored to many applications. But if you've discovered a method that provides you with some of the same benefits through development alone, by all means do what is most convenient for you. I have that same mentality when working with roll film. I certainly know how to mask roll film, and often have done it for sake of color printing. But that whole game is a lot more efficiently done with sheet film per se. The bigger the film, the easier and more precise registration is; the smaller, the bigger the headache instead.

[tundra]

They're quite different, actually. And note that I mentioned masking in reference to being a whole tool kit in its own right, not just a single method. It can be tailored to many applications. But if you've discovered a method that provides you with some of the same benefits through development alone, by all means do what is most convenient for you. I have that same mentality when working with roll film. I certainly know how to mask roll film, and often have done it for sake of color printing. But that whole game is a lot more efficiently done with sheet film per se. The bigger the film, the easier and more precise registration is; the smaller, the bigger the headache instead.

It is still on my photographic bucket list, but finding a reasonably priced registration punch seems ... hard.

Could you comment on how the results from the two approaches are quite different. I'm curious.

[GoodOldNorm]

It's nice to see others pursuing a Minimal Agitation form of film processing. Since 2003 this type of film processing is the only manner in which I have processed my sheet film. So, I believe I can speak with some experience on the topic. Many of your findings are on point. There are, however, several items I don't completely find to be true in my experience.

#1, almost never is local contrast adequate in a Normal contrast scene, therefore, the Minimal Agitation technique can alter and enhance those relationships without compromising the high values that are associated with Plus development. If by chance the final rendering of mid-tone contrast needs to be reduced, a simple addition of Green-light in the printing process with modern Multi-Contrast papers accomplishes that.

#2, I have had conversations with Mr. Kachel regarding his philosophy, while in theory, his approach is valid, it does not take into account the difference between a film's characteristic curve compared to that of Multi-Contrast paper's potential curve. In other words and in my theory, I forsake compressing tonalities by way of development contraction so those same mid-tones can be exaggerated in a much more aggressive manner by way of MC papers. Adjacency Effects is the exact reason mid-tones can "survive" that much compression. So, while, it seems backward or unnecessary to "compress" negative tonalities only to turn around and "expand" those same tonalities in the final printing process. The steeper curve of MC papers brings those mid-tones to greater vibrancy, unlike that of simple higher negative densities. Similar to the end justifies the means." As the author states, nothing really counts until the final silver print is in hand, and that is the exact place that I speak from.

#3, Just how much tonality a negative can "hold/record" is mostly associated with Adams's Zone System suggesting around 10 zones, that's more a product of Silver papers of the times and how much contraction the film can endure. Films have been tested to record 14-15 zones of contrast before their limits are realized. So, compressing that much contrast produces an extremely flat negative, yet, with Minimal Agitation and the exaggeration of tones by way of MC papers the limits are pushed to areas many film photographers are simply not aware exist.
If you did not need compensation in the highlights or good shadow detail what method/developer would you choose to get good separation in the mid tones? This would apply for example if photographing a tree trunk/burr with only 3-5 zones.

[Steve Sherman]

They're quite different, actually. And note that I mentioned masking in reference to being a whole tool kit in its own right, not just a single method. It can be tailored to many applications. But if you've discovered a method that provides you with some of the same benefits through development alone, by all means do what is most convenient for you. I have that same mentality when working with roll film. I certainly know how to mask roll film, and often have done it for sake of color printing. But that whole game is a lot more efficiently done with sheet film per se. The bigger the film, the easier and more precise registration is; the smaller, the bigger the headache instead.

I'm interested to know where you have seen well-done Minimal Agitation silver prints, and how many under extreme lighting conditions have seen in person ??

[Drew Wiley]

Tundra - there are past threads on masking. I really don't want to get the subject tangled up with the immediate thread. But to give a brief clue, development controls and masking controls are not competing adversaries, but potentially complementary tools. Just more options. It's no accident that a number of significant tweaks available through Photoshop etc have been deliberately named after prior graphic arts techniques, including various forms of masking. In certain cases, the slower older true darkroom versions using actual film are still the most precise and nuanced, especially since no intermediate scanning complications are involved. All kinds of things - edge effect, microtonality, curve re-distribution, highly selective dodging/burning, highlight protection, shadow enhancement - can be done this way. And in color printing, selective hue correction, as well as specific hue enhancement vs diminishment, can be added to that list.

But like any other skill set, there is a learning curve to it, and also a distinct equipment investment if one gets serious about it. But it's still best to have a good versatile negative on hand. It's not a substitute for proper exposure and development. Yes, there are certain remedial things that can be done this way; but masking technique really shines when it's enhancing the final outcome in print, and not merely correcting it.

[tundra]

Tundra - there are past threads on masking. I really don't want to get the subject tangled up with the immediate thread. But to give a brief clue, development controls and masking controls are not competing adversaries, but potentially complementary tools. Just more options. It's no accident that a number of significant tweaks available through Photoshop etc have been deliberately named after prior graphic arts techniques, including various forms of masking. In certain cases, the slower older true darkroom versions using actual film are still the most precise and nuanced, especially since no intermediate scanning complications are involved. All kinds of things - edge effect, microtonality, curve re-distribution, highly selective dodging/burning, highlight protection, shadow enhancement - can be done this way. And in color printing, selective hue correction, as well as specific hue enhancement vs diminishment, can be added to that list.

But like any other skill set, there is a learning curve to it, and also a distinct equipment investment if one gets serious about it. But it's still best to have a good versatile negative on hand. It's not a substitute for proper exposure and development. Yes, there are certain remedial things that can be done this way; but masking technique really shines when it's enhancing the final outcome in print, and not merely correcting it.

Interesting. I may have located a registration punch for reasonable dollars, so I may dive into that yet ...

[tundra]

If you did not need compensation in the highlights or good shadow detail what method/developer would you choose to get good separation in the mid tones? This would apply for example if photographing a tree trunk/burr with only 3-5 zones.

I cannot speak for Steve, but I'd take two approaches to this and compare the results.

First, I'd try conventional expanded (N+) development with normal agitation using Pyrocat-HD, HC-110B, D-76, or DK-50 ... whichever is most available or best understood by you. (I am not excluding other developers, these are just the ones I have handy :) Keep in mind that effective film speed will rise when you do this so you have take that into account.

Secondly, I'd try a low agitation technique with Pyrocat-HD - either Extreme Minimal Agitation or Semistand. (I have found full Stand development too inconsistent with modern films.) In this case, I'd rate the film a full box speed. In both cases, I'd vigorously agitate the first 2 mins. For EMA, I'd dilute 1.5:1:150, and agitate at 12 and 21 minutes and end development at 30mins as a starting point. For Semistand, I'd dilute 1.5:1:200 and develop for either 45 or 60 min, with a single midpoint agitation of 15 sec. This assumes 68F chemistry temp.

With minimal agitation techniques, I've found that if you use hangers they have to be the minimal clip style not the frame type or you risk bromide drag. X-Ray film clips will probably work too. For rollfilm avoid the plastic reels and the Brand-X stainless reels - stick with Nikkor - their reel spacing has yet to give a problem with bromide drag, at least with 35mm. (I have not tried rollfilm this way yet.)

My 2 cents worth ... and worth what you paid ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Remember, you need not only a film punch, but a precisely matching masking exposure frame - essentially a contact printing frame with the correct registration pins present in the glass, at identical spacing.

One trick I liked to do was to take an appropriate film and both overexpose and overdevelop it slightly, for sake of optimal highlight expansion and midtone mictotonality - counterintuitive for sure - but then rein in the printing density range via unsharp masking. This worked particularly well with 8X10 shots on HP5 developed in pyro, then printed on premium VC papers through a blue filter. It isn't appropriate for every image, but the subtlety of its almost-etched look and extreme textural rendition throughout can be stunning. It takes some practice to master. An analogous but more versatile and slightly more subtle effect is achievable on finer-grained films with otherwise good acutance like FP4 and TMY400.

TMX100 is a somewhat different issue. It has a very long straight line and excellent development versatility as far as gamma is concerned, just like its faster TMY cousin, and responds well to masking in terms of tonality control. But despite its considerable capacity for detail, it lacks good native edge acutance. So it's a good candidate for the kind of enhanced development options under consideration in the immediate thread. I don't want to get into that particular fray or debate, but do have my own analogous method specifically for this particular film, which significantly improves its acutance. But minimal agitation per se is just too risky in terms of streaking or other forms of unevenness, given the amount of sheer backpacking distance I sometimes undertake to get these shots to begin with.

[tundra]

Remember, you need not only a film punch, but a precisely matching masking exposure frame - essentially a contact printing frame with the correct registration pins present in the glass, at identical spacing.

One trick I liked to do was to take an appropriate film and both overexpose and overdevelop it slightly, for sake of optimal highlight expansion and midtone mictotonality - counterintuitive for sure - but then rein in the printing density range via unsharp masking. This worked particularly well with 8X10 shots on HP5 developed in pyro, then printed on premium VC papers through a blue filter. It isn't appropriate for every image, but the subtlety of its almost-etched look and extreme textural rendition throughout can be stunning. It takes some practice to master. An analogous but more versatile and slightly more subtle effect is achievable on finer-grained films with otherwise good acutance like FP4 and TMY400.

Yes, I will either have to make do with taping them together (using the punch to re-register) or trying to find a frame. I'm fairly handy and I have access to people who like 3d printing, so making one is not out of reach either.

[Drew Wiley]

Most 3D printing materials aren't going to be dimensionally stable enough for this kind of application. Registration has to be maintained within two thousandths of an inch regardless of temperature or humidity fluctuations. Even the masking film itself has to be dimensionally stable (polyester or Estar base, not acetate), and preferably the original shooting film itself too. A good machinist can easily work in those tolerances. But the problem is finding thick glass which can be drilled that precisely. The most appropriate thick anti-Newton glass is no longer made. And most glass shop thick glass is tempered and not drilled well. If possible, it's best to find an already matching punch and frame set, made at the same time as a pair. Otherwise, you'd need to resort to the registration pins being slightly outside the glass area itself, drilled into perimeter aluminum. That's how its most commonly done nowadays. Heiland claims to offer matched components in a variety of custom sizes; but I don't know about their pricing or delivery schedule. And there are other suppliers for 4x5 size only, which is best for MF or 35mm film too, since you punch a strip of sheet film and tape the smaller original to it (using thin polyester rather than acetate or paper tape).

[Steve Sherman]

If you did not need compensation in the highlights or good shadow detail what method/developer would you choose to get good separation in the mid tones? This would apply for example if photographing a tree trunk/burr with only 3-5 zones.

I believe Pyro based developers are superior to all other developers, particularly when silver printing is the end goal, with PyroCat being slightly superior to PMK.

[davidkachel]

#2, I have had conversations with Mr. Kachel regarding his philosophy, while in theory, his approach is valid, it does not take into account the difference between a film's characteristic curve compared to that of Multi-Contrast paper's potential curve. In other words and in my theory, I forsake compressing tonalities by way of development contraction so those same mid-tones can be exaggerated in a much more aggressive manner by way of MC papers. Adjacency Effects is the exact reason mid-tones can "survive" that much compression. So, while, it seems backward or unnecessary to "compress" negative tonalities only to turn around and "expand" those same tonalities in the final printing process. The steeper curve of MC papers brings those mid-tones to greater vibrancy, unlike that of simple higher negative densities. Similar to the end justifies the means." As the author states, nothing really counts until the final silver print is in hand, and that is the exact place that I speak from.

Hi, Steve...
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, but I didn't see it until just now. Actually, I addressed exactly your point, but not in that particular article. I wrote a rather lengthy article shortly after the series on Contraction, entitled: The Primacy of Local Contrast, in which, among other things, I specifically state that film is best used for decreasing local contrast, while paper best serves the needs of increased local contrast. The article appeared a short time after the Contraction series, I believe. Perhaps that is where you got the idea, but have since forgotten. If you came up with it on your own, bravo! I don't recall anyone else having that insight.
You can find a recent update of the article here: http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/?page_id=8

[Steve Sherman]

Hi, Steve...
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, but I didn't see it until just now. Actually, I addressed exactly your point, but not in that particular article. I wrote a rather lengthy article shortly after the series on Contraction, entitled: The Primacy of Local Contrast, in which, among other things, I specifically state that film is best used for decreasing local contrast, while paper best serves the needs of increased local contrast. The article appeared a short time after the Contraction series, I believe. Perhaps that is where you got the idea, but have since forgotten. If you came up with it on your own, bravo! I don't recall anyone else having that insight.
You can find a recent update of the article here: http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/?page_id=8

Hello David,
Thanks for responding and for the shoutout on insight. Actually, only 4-5 years into playing with sheet film back in the mid '80s I realized that the graded papers of the times provided the mid-tone edge relationships I responded too over that of normal contrast graded papers. Years later when MC papers finally caught hold in quality when compared to graded papers did I begin to reduce development to a lower highlight density to only turn around and print with harder contrast. It didn't make a lot of sense on the surface, yet a deeper dive reveals exactly how Green and Blue light affect MC papers and the potential to my approach. I've always enjoyed high contrast situations and regularly used the McSavveny method of film contraction for Silver Gelatin printing prior to a switch to Pyro in the mid '90s. Around late 2003 I perfected an Extreme Minimal Agitation technique with modern thin emulsion films, (perfected, not discovered). The film is essentially agitated for only 10% of the time in developer. So, because of MC papers I pushed those mid-tone contrast trends to an extreme, i.e., generous low value exposure, shadows higher on the straight line and reduced development to again use higher contrast relationships in the mid-tone section. The EMA film processing technique provides increased separation in all negative densities, the lower highlight density allows for a minimum of Green light exposure resulting in exaggerated mid-tone relationships. In that regard, the Zone System does take into account the potential of modern MC papers. Which is why I wrote a detailed article for UnBlinkingEye on my Separation System linked here: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html Here is a more detailed look into my EMA technique on the same website
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/RASS/rass.html Clearly, there can be several approaches to designing negatives for Silver printing, my non-traditional Zone System approach of additional exposure and reduced highlight density in concert with PyroCat HD, the EMA processing technique has served me very well since 2003. While I have never done contrast masking, those who have knowledge of the masking technique have offered these thoughts, the EMA film processing approach is organic and the vibrancy and smoothness of mid-tone relationships seems more traditional in the final print. Appreciate you reaching out. SS

[Steve Sherman]

If you did not need compensation in the highlights or good shadow detail what method/developer would you choose to get good separation in the mid tones? This would apply for example if photographing a tree trunk/burr with only 3-5 zones.

Apologies on not seeing this until today, I would use the exact EMA technique no matter what the original scene contrast may call for. Very simply, if the original scene contrast doesn't require as much separation, I would simply add more Green light to the print exposure to tone down the negative relationships if they are deemed to much by the creator of the neg. Also, my development scheme still uses a development approach of N - 1, 2, 3, 4 or N or N + 1, 2, 3 and 4 as an FYI.