How To Create Dense & Contrasty Film Negs For Alt Prints?

[LFLarry]

Hi, I am wanting to explore some alternative salt printing and I know that I am going to need a much more dense and contrasty negative.

I want to test on my 4x5 and then eventually use my 8x10.

What is the best way to create much more dense and higher contrast negatives?

I will be using Ilford HP5 film and HC-110 as my developer because that is what I have, so i would appreciate the comments being focusd on this film and developer.

To create more dense negatives, I assume I will give it more exposure time?

For more contrast, I assume I would just develop the film for longer times?

I understand I will have to do a lot of testing, which I will do, I just want to make sure I am headed in the right direction with my methods to create the more dense and contrasty negatives.

Thank you

Larry

[Ulophot]

LFLarry, I can;t speak to the salt process, but you may wish to look a bit further into the differences between exposure and development increases. Both increase density, but do it in different ways, partly because sensitized salts reacting to light do not follow the same specifications as exposed salts reacting with (being chemically reduced by) developer. Exposure pushes all values up along the emulsion's sensitivity curve; hence, while low values may gain separation as they move off the toe into the straighter-line portion of the curve, the highest values may be subject to some compression. Development increase, in general, tends in increase separation (contrast) while increasing density at the same time.

A lower dilution of your HC-110 may be in order, rather than simply a longer development time.

[LFLarry]

I have not thought about the lower dilution of the developer route. I will dig into that more and see if there is something there to pursue. Thanks for the idea.



LFLarry, I can;t speak to the salt process, but you may wish to look a bit further into the differences between exposure and development increases. Both increase density, but do it in different ways, partly because sensitized salts reacting to light do not follow the same specifications as exposed salts reacting with (being chemically reduced by) developer. Exposure pushes all values up along the emulsion's sensitivity curve; hence, while low values may gain separation as they move off the toe into the straighter-line portion of the curve, the highest values may be subject to some compression. Development increase, in general, tends in increase separation (contrast) while increasing density at the same time.

A lower dilution of your HC-110 may be in order, rather than simply a longer development time.

[Vaughn]

# 1...Do not use HP5+. It expands, but slower/less than other films.

#2...Use FP4+ and Ilford Universal PQ developer at close to paper strength. Or Dektol (1:2, 1;1 or even straight depending on your starting SBR).

#3...or use a staining developer to increase selective UV blocking.

#4...since you have HP4+, give #2 a try.

Below: 4x10 negative developed in straight Dektol, printed in carbon (which can handle more contrast than any other process.) PS...someone scanned this neg and printed a 7 foot tall inkjet copy -- nice grain.

Many alt processes handle deep shadow detail wonderfully -- and it is worth giving extra exposure to get 'dense' negatives to take advantage of this. The thinnest possible negative to achieive a good print sounds good for silver gelatin printing, does not always give you the best print in other processes.

[LFLarry]

Hi Vaughn, I was not aware I could use a paper developer like Dektol to develop film, so I definitely learned something here. It makese sense by lowering the dilution or even stock would increase the density and contrast.

I will give that a try at various dilutions to include stock and see how that goes.

Salt printing requires the most dense and contrasty negatives of all the alt processes based on my understanding, so I may have my work cut out for me.

Thank you for the ideas.







# 1...Do not use HP5+. It expands, but slower/less than other films.

#2...Use FP4+ and Ilford Universal PQ developer at close to paper strength. Or Dektol (1:2, 1;1 or even straight depending on your starting SBR).

#3...or use a staining developer to increase selective UV blocking.

#4...since you have HP4+, give #2 a try.

Below: 4x10 negative developed in straight Dektol, printed in carbon (which can handle more contrast than any other process.) PS...someone scanned this neg and printed a 7 foot tall inkjet copy -- nice grain.

Many alt processes handle deep shadow detail wonderfully -- and it is worth giving extra exposure to get 'dense' negatives to take advantage of this. The thinnest possible negative to achieive a good print sounds good for silver gelatin printing, does not always give you the best print in other processes.

[Vaughn]

The way I make carbon prints (whether right or wrong...it's the prints that matter) takes similar negs (around 2.8 to 3.0 density range). I print with a raised relief, and by having healthy negs, I can have pure black shadows that have detail in them in the form of relief.

Paper developers are more active developers than film developers. And I believe Dektol was considered a 'universal' developer at one point.

[xkaes]

Another approach would be to start with a contrasty film and working your way DOWN -- Tech Pan, LITH, etc. comes to mind -- instead of using a normal contrast film and working your way UP.

[LFLarry]

I was thinking about Ortho-Litho in a paper developer. I am in line with the idea for sure. Part of me wants to see if I can reach my vision with a lower contrast film like HP5 since I have a ton of it on hand, but if it isn't the right choice, I am always willing to use a better tool for the job. The thing that I don't like about the Ortho-Litho film is that it is so darn thin and prone to be easily damaged, but I assume if that were the best choice, I would figure out how to manage that issue.

Thanks for your ideas.



Another approach would be to start with a contrasty film and working your way DOWN -- Tech Pan, LITH, etc. comes to mind -- instead of using a normal contrast film and working your way UP.

[LabRat]

Double sided X-ray film is made to build contrast with it's two layers, but still can produce normal contrast depending on developer/development...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

It's really tricky to make full scale negs on Ortho Litho or Tech Pan. Yeah, achieving high contrast per se is super easy. But retaining detail in the upper highlights and deep shadows is a near impossibility. And lith films are hard to develop without a lot of streaking and blotchiness, especially in a paper developer like Dektol. Of course, artsy types do that sort of thing all the time, seeking some unpredictable "funky" look. Just so you know the difference. Tech Pan is no longer made, though I have a stash of 8x10. And Ortho Litho is even thinner, so tends to seat sloppy in a conventional holder, but it's cheap. It's better to go with a full scale regular pan film that is tolerant of relatively high contrast development if you want predictability and a reasonable film speed. The advantage of HC-110 is that it works well over a very wide range of dilutions, and it gets along well with Arista Ortho Litho.

[Tin Can]

Some Alt Printers and some 'important' ones now use DIGI Negs

BUT some should study a certain Canadian that works wonders and has posted his all film process more than once

He makes it look easy

it is not

[j.e.simmons]

I’ve done more albumen than salt printing, but my thoughts would be the same.

I don’t think you need a more dense negative. More contrast, yes, but not more overall density.

I think the density idea came from Michael A. Smith’s use of old Super XX film which had fogged. He wrote about using a 300w bulb to print through his negatives on to Azo. I have no idea what UV bulb would be an equivalent, but printing times would be significant. I’ve found my more normal density, but contrasty, negatives to print in much more reasonable times.

[paulbarden]

Last fall I went in pursuit of the same goals - to make the ideal negatives for salt printing. I studied what materials I could and found many of the same ideas repeated. That includes: use FP4, not HP5, because HP5 has a much denser film/fog base which makes printing shadow details unnecessarily difficult with salt.
I settled on using PMK as the developer at a 2:2:100 dilution to achieve the needed density (plus the Pyro stain helps a lot to create the right UV blocking for salt contrast).

I suggest you take a look at Ellie Young’s document (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15614798.pdf) for some excellent ideas.

[Jim Noel]

Hi Vaughn, I was not aware I could use a paper developer like Dektol to develop film, so I definitely learned something here. It makese sense by lowering the dilution or even stock would increase the density and contrast.

I will give that a try at various dilutions to include stock and see how that goes.

Salt printing requires the most dense and contrasty negatives of all the alt processes based on my understanding, so I may have my work cut out for me.

Thank you for the ideas.

I have been making salt prints for about 25 years. They do not require a "dense" negative. They require a negative with a very long scale, which means the highlights require significantly more density than do the important shadows. If the shadow densities are high, they only increase the printing time. Shadows only need to be dense enough to print the preferred detail. In other words, the shadows need appropriate exposure, and the highlights need appropriate development which is often more than whatever is considered "normal".
These requirements are best met with FP4+ which expands (increases separation between shadows and highlights) much better than do faster films like HP5+. Slower films, by their nature expand better than do fast ones. I prefer FP4+ for general use, but I also use a lot of orthochromatic films.

[Michael R]

I’d keep it simple I start and only make it more complicated if required.

HC-110 is a good choice in a film developer for this since you have it on hand. Rodinal would also work well. Ilford PQ universal or most print developers will work very well. Then if you need more density you can try intensification.

HP5 is not the “best” for this. The best I can think of would be Kodak TXP, but Kodak sheet film is expensive. If you wanted to use an ortho film, Ilford Ortho would be a good choice, but is slower than TXP.

I wouldn’t want to use ortho-litho films in-camera (ortho, too slow, short scale and finicky) but that’s me.

You can also dup a negative to expand density range but that’s more involved and a pain.


Hi, I am wanting to explore some alternative salt printing and I know that I am going to need a much more dense and contrasty negative.

I want to test on my 4x5 and then eventually use my 8x10.

What is the best way to create much more dense and higher contrast negatives?

I will be using Ilford HP5 film and HC-110 as my developer because that is what I have, so i would appreciate the comments being focusd on this film and developer.

To create more dense negatives, I assume I will give it more exposure time?

For more contrast, I assume I would just develop the film for longer times?

I understand I will have to do a lot of testing, which I will do, I just want to make sure I am headed in the right direction with my methods to create the more dense and contrasty negatives.

Thank you

Larry

[Jim Noel]

I was thinking about Ortho-Litho in a paper developer. I am in line with the idea for sure. Part of me wants to see if I can reach my vision with a lower contrast film like HP5 since I have a ton of it on hand, but if it isn't the right choice, I am always willing to use a better tool for the job. The thing that I don't like about the Ortho-Litho film is that it is so darn thin and prone to be easily damaged, but I assume if that were the best choice, I would figure out how to manage that issue.

Thanks for your ideas.

If you decide to use ortho-litho films, don't use paper developers which will increase the contrast range to essentially unusable.

[Vaughn]

I was keeping away from mentioning too many films, but my last backpack trip (a couple weeks ago), my 4x5 holders were loaded up with Kodak Professional Copy Film (#4125, ASA 25). Talk about contrast control! I have developed 6 and have 12 more to do...the first batch to narrow down the development for the rest. It was much sunnier than I expected (rain one night, tho), so more scene contrast than expected.

I have used it before in 4x5 and 8x10, but one never knows how it ages. The pack I used was dated 10/1999. Pleased, very little base fog, unlike the box of 8x10 I am working on. Below is a straight carbon contact print from 8x10 copy film. Scene read 9 to 12 on my Pentax spot meter, and exposed at 10. That is one stop more than I would normally give a film, and this film takes that one stop and uses it to bump up the high values. The shadows are controlled more by development. Another neg of the scene I exposed at 11 prints nicely in platinum and I could probably control the contrast for a silver gelatin print. So good continous tone -- but since it is ortho and does respond to light differently, it might have a slightly different look. Looks good to me.

[Drew Wiley]

???? I haven't used any 4125 copy film for the past 30 yrs, and even then the box was old. Did you somehow manage to steal that from a touring King Tut tomb artifact exhibition, Vaughn? Or more likely, that nice shot you just posted actually represents the tunnel you used to raid a different Egyptian tomb.

[jp]

I'd also suggest dektol, pyrocat hd, pyrocat hdc, pmk pyro, etc.. For the pyro developers, discard the develop when it's stop bath time (no second dip). The staining developers add density proportional to the silver, so a basic darkroom contact print will not see the additional density, but a UV based contact print will be greatly affected.

[LFLarry]

Hi Drew, I think you quantified the challenge at hand very well. It is sort of ironic that we have such a struggle to create the dense and contrasty negatives that were commonplace during the periods using modern panchromatic films when these printing processes were in their prime. I am starting to get the feeling that FP4 in HC110 may be a good path to pursue. I was hopeful I could use what I have on hand (HP5 and HC110), and I am going to at least test this to see what happens. If I can't get there with what I have, then I will explore other options like FP4, etc.

Thanks

Larry




It's really tricky to make full scale negs on Ortho Litho or Tech Pan. Yeah, achieving high contrast per se is super easy. But retaining detail in the upper highlights and deep shadows is a near impossibility. And lith films are hard to develop without a lot of streaking and blotchiness, especially in a paper developer like Dektol. Of course, artsy types do that sort of thing all the time, seeking some unpredictable "funky" look. Just so you know the difference. Tech Pan is no longer made, though I have a stash of 8x10. And Ortho Litho is even thinner, so tends to seat sloppy in a conventional holder, but it's cheap. It's better to go with a full scale regular pan film that is tolerant of relatively high contrast development if you want predictability and a reasonable film speed. The advantage of HC-110 is that it works well over a very wide range of dilutions, and it gets along well with Arista Ortho Litho.

[LFLarry]

That is good to know and thank you for sharing your experience. I feel a little better about all this now. Controlling contrast is not a difficult thing to do of course. I will be testing wtih the film (HP5) and developer (HC110) that i have on hand, even though I know that HP5 is considered to be a lower contrast film. I simply won't know unless I put the time in and try. A friend messaged me last night and said he was going to send me 10 sheets of FP4 to try and compare to the HP5. He seems to think I will probably get better results with FP4.

Based on everything I have research on salt printing, bullet proof dense negatives and much higher contrast seems to be the going advice.

I am starting my frist tests this weekend and I will loop back and share some updates when I have something to share based on my first hand experience.

I appreciate the info.

Larry




I’ve done more albumen than salt printing, but my thoughts would be the same.

I don’t think you need a more dense negative. More contrast, yes, but not more overall density.

I think the density idea came from Michael A. Smith’s use of old Super XX film which had fogged. He wrote about using a 300w bulb to print through his negatives on to Azo. I have no idea what UV bulb would be an equivalent, but printing times would be significant. I’ve found my more normal density, but contrasty, negatives to print in much more reasonable times.

[Michael Wellman]

What's your favorite developer/time for X-ray? Just starting to get into this process.

Double sided X-ray film is made to build contrast with it's two layers, but still can produce normal contrast depending on developer/development...

Steve K

[Jim Noel]

Hi Drew, I think you quantified the challenge at hand very well. It is sort of ironic that we have such a struggle to create the dense and contrasty negatives that were commonplace during the periods using modern panchromatic films when these printing processes were in their prime. I am starting to get the feeling that FP4 in HC110 may be a good path to pursue. I was hopeful I could use what I have on hand (HP5 and HC110), and I am going to at least test this to see what happens. If I can't get there with what I have, then I will explore other options like FP4, etc.

Thanks

Larry

These processes were in their prime before Panchromatic films were in theirs. Orthochromatic films were used for a great number of these and other alternative process methods. I still have an ortho negative whic is roll film developed commercially, probably in D-23, or D-76. It as a magnificent scale. Straight print on Azo#2

[Jim Noel]

That is good to know and thank you for sharing your experience. I feel a little better about all this now. Controlling contrast is not a difficult thing to do of course. I will be testing wtih the film (HP5) and developer (HC110) that i have on hand, even though I know that HP5 is considered to be a lower contrast film. I simply won't know unless I put the time in and try. A friend messaged me last night and said he was going to send me 10 sheets of FP4 to try and compare to the HP5. He seems to think I will probably get better results with FP4.

Based on everything I have research on salt printing, bullet proof dense negatives and much higher contrast seems to be the going advice.

I am starting my frist tests this weekend and I will loop back and share some updates when I have something to share based on my first hand experience.

I appreciate the info.

Larry

Your friend is doing you a favor. and he is correct!

[Drew Wiley]

HP5 has somewhat of a longer more sweeping toe than FP4, so benefits from some overexposure if deep shadow gradation is needed. And while not being a true thick emulsion film, it is still thicker in that respect than most current films, so will take on a deeper fbf stain when a pyro developer is used than FP4. I particularly like the manner PMK renders lovely "watercolor grain" along with excellent edge acutance with HP5. But you do end up with a lot of extra yellow-green density difficult for UV to print through. Nowadays I prefer TMY400 instead, which is a lot more cooperative in numerous respects, but also has gotten very pricey in 8x10. But having that extra speed is certainly welcome in windy conditions compared to FP4, which I rate at only 50. But by all means, do try HP5 and HC-110 first for its own particular look. It should work fine if the original scene contrast range is moderate, and you boost the negative density via longer development. And sometimes ending up lost in the woods during the learning curve ain't such a bad thing. You discover things you might otherwise overlook. Unfortunately, it might be be the bones of somebody who wandered off in despair back when good ole Super-XX was discontinued. A step at a time.

[martiansea]

What's your favorite developer/time for X-ray? Just starting to get into this process.

I had good results with developing green sensitive X-ray film in Rodinal 1:50 dilution at around 5 minutes development at 20C. Metered at ISO100. Printed good with cyanotype and with gum pigment. But, wasn't so good with salt when I tried that.

[Cor]

FWIW when I occasionally use 8*10 for pure Platinum printing I expose and process in Xtol for normal silver gelatine, if I like the image enough for platinum, I bleach the neg and re-develop in PyrocatHD and print it in platinum. It works but it is a a bit of a hassle, but I do this rarely.

good luck,

Best,

Cor

[Vaughn]

I have also given a neg a slight bleaching, refix, then selenium toning, to bump up the contrast. But rare.

[paulbarden]

Read the publication by Ellie Young. I provided a link. She goes into great detail about her process for producing the optimal negative for salt printing using FP4 and a Pyro developer, specifically PMK. I have used her technique and found it works beautifully.

[Vaughn]

Here is another example of FP4+ in Universal PQ Developer used at paper strength (1:9). I just posted this.

Development info : 8x10 FP4+ in Ilford Universal PQ Developer 1:9, 67F, 9 minutes in Expert Drum

The scene has a 4 stop range (or 5 zones, depending on how one counts them). The meter read from 12 to 16. No filter...no need for a more dramatic sky, and I have a liking for the atmospheric distance. Exposed slightly under what might be considered normal (at 4.7)...the negative with the more exposure was used. The shadow the boys were in was very open with some reflected light from the granite.

The Pt/pd print was made using no contrast agent (native contrast).

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169517-Where-do-y-all-record-your-photo-data&p=1651120&viewfull=1#post1651120

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I've generally used Efke 25 for years for my carbon prints. As Jim Noel says, and you can bank on his advice, a full scale negative is what I shoot for. Generally I'm at 1.8 to 2.5 DR. I develop in Pyrocat HD 2:2:100. I wish I could fins some more of this film because if you need expansion it will expand like no other. Don't use HP5 use FP-4 for sure otherwise you are wasting time and money. Take the advice of some great photographers here answering your question and get on with it. Good luck.

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5 can be used for alt processes, as long as you develop it in a high contrast developer like D-19, or DK-50 (thanks to Vaughn's suggestion several years ago). I've tested it in both and was able to easily make excellent carbon prints. Yes, there are easier films to use such as FP4, but I happen to prefer HP5's look, particularly in the shadows. If they still made EFke 25, I'd be all over that film. That's a tough one to beat!

[koraks]

FWIW when I occasionally use 8*10 for pure Platinum printing I expose and process in Xtol for normal silver gelatine, if I like the image enough for platinum, I bleach the neg and re-develop in PyrocatHD and print it in platinum. It works but it is a a bit of a hassle, but I do this rarely.

good luck,

Best,

Cor

Cor, that might work OK for Pt, but it won't give enough contrast for a good salt print.

Btw, when we meet later this year (probably September-ish?), please do bring along a few of your Pt prints!! I'd love to see them.