Anyone want to diagnose this negative?

[okcomputer]

It's very contrasty to me, and I've been getting this recently as I've gotten back into 4x5 film development.
Subject was by a window, so I'd expect it's a bit of a difficult lighting situation, but not too bad.
I haven't done it here, but I can bring some back highlights and shadows in LR, but not nearly as much as I'd like.

Here are the details:

HP5+ @ 400. Fresh box
HC-110 Dil B, 20C, 5 minutes
Agitation: 1 minutes cont, and then 10 seconds every minute
Stearman Press tank


thoughts? Too much agitation?

thanks!




232220

[Tobias Key]

Whenever I have used that combination I have used HC110 at a higher dilution so you get a development time around 10mins. That would hold back the highlights a bit, as the developer would start to get exhausted in the highlights between agitations. I always try to get development times on the longer side with large format negatives as it makes it easier to get even development. Agitation is the same as I use - I do about 4 inversions in 10 seconds. I make a point of only inverting slowly so there is less possibility of surge marks from the negative holder. Always hard to diagnose without seeing a straight scan of the negative.

[Neal Chaves]

I learned a lot from the books of William Mortensen. In his book On the Negative he shows his Ring Around Method of "reading a negative". Read his book first. I inverted your image to a negative with the GIMP (Get it. It's free.) and of the nine possible negatives in Mortensen's Ring around, I would say this one is under exposed and over developed.

232239

[Neal Chaves]

Only more exposure will put detail in her hair. More development won't do it. It's already "pushed" as it is. It's unusual "short" portrait lighting, but still with reduced development, skin tone will be much smoother. Try HP5+ at 400 7:00 at 68* in HC110 B or IlfotecHC 1:31. Rate same at 100 for greater range and develop for 5:00.

[okcomputer]

Thanks, is dilution and dev time pretty linear relations (ie, I use half the amount of HC-110, I'd need to double the dev time)?

[okcomputer]

Thank you, this helps explain that's going on. I can believe that I underexposed it while over developing.

[nolindan]

Window portraits need a reflector to fill in the 'dark side.' A sheet of foam-core/cardboard or a sheet (literally) work well. As do those fold-up-go-sproing sun-shade thingies that go behind a car's windshield to keep the sun out of the car. I prop a sheet of foam-core in a chair - no need for a stand & fancy holder.

If the above was taken with a reflector then it is a decided case of underexposure/overdevelopment. Try exposing at EI200 and reducing development time by about 20%.

As mentioned above, a development time of ~10 minutes is best for sheet film for uniform results.

[Andreas]

A reflector seems to be a good advice. I never had satisfactory results when exposing 400iso BW negative at the original rating. 200 to 320 and under-developing works better for me (expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights !).
Andreas

[Doremus Scudder]

HC-110 reacts almost linearly when changing dilutions. So if you change from 1+31 (dil. B) to 1+63, you just need to double your original development time to get a very close starting point for the same development. Since you have overdeveloped here, I'd use 10% - 15% less development, i.e., 10 minutes minus 10% = 9 minutes or 10 minutes minus 15% = 8.5 minutes as a starting point.

Then, add 2/3 stop more exposure to your current E.I. and try again, using the reflector mentioned above. I imagine you'll be happier with the results.

Keep tweaking development and E.I. till you get what you like.

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Number if items to consider with the results given the image is perceived as excessively high contrast.

Any specific B&W film has a EI (Exposure Index) coupled with Developer/Development process will result in a specific film density curve that is coupled to the contrast range or amount of light in the image scene to be recorded. Or, if the image scene has a light range of 10 f-stops but the film/development-processing allows only 5 f-stops of usable film density the lower and higher range if light intensity get's clipped off producing what is considered a high contrast image on the film negative.

Solution to this would be to:

~Reduce the light intensity range in the image scene. This could be done by adding lighting, using a reflector or apply controlled lighting to the image scene to fit the limits of what the film system (Film type+EI+Developing/process) to achieve the image contrast range as needed to meet the image goals.

~Bend the film curve to accommodate a larger light intensity or contrast range. This means over exposing relative to the established EI or "box ISO film speed" then under develop the film during processing. ~Opposite is achieved (higher contrast) when the film is under exposed then over developed.

~Or a combination of both to achieve the desired image contrast rendition.

~Other considerations would be how the film negative will be used. If optically printed, ideal would be to fit the film's image (film curve) to the specific print paper to be used. This demands and required testing of the entire film based image making process to achieve the image results as intended. If the film image is scanned then digital print processed, the film negative requirements could be different than a film negative used for the optical printing process. If the film negative is used for an alternative photo chemical process print.. the film negative will again have different set of needs and requirements..

~A film negative needs to be tailor made to fit a given print making process and the image goals as intended.

Do spend some time learning about Portrait Lighting and lighting ratios.. as this is basic to portrait photography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9iKduIaXA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_Sov3xmgwg


Film size or format makes zero difference with lighting. Same basics apply to B&W or color portraits.

Bernice

[Eric Woodbury]

There's no law about having detail in shadows and highlights. They look fine to me. I like the black hair emerging from the darkness. And the highlights are still there.

EjW

[jp]

We'd need to see a photo of the actual negative on a light box or at a window. Could be a bad scan for all we know.

If it's not a bad scan, I'd say more exposure and less or diluted development.