PDA

View Full Version : Hybrid b&w workflow - still N+/- Process?



marschp
20-Mar-2009, 16:33
Is there any point to specifying contrast controls (i.e. N+1, N-1 development) at the development stage when the negative is going to be scanned, post-processed and inkjet printed?

With the ability to significantly alter overall contrast and local contrast within Photoshop, is there any point in locking in a specific contrast 'profile' at the stage of negative development?

Or to put it another way, if the negative is going to be scanned, then shouldn't I really be aiming for a negative that encompasses the broadest range of tones possible, while retaining a safety margin for scanning, knowing that I can achieve my contrast visualization in post processing?

If there are any b&w shooters out there who are using a hybrid darkroom/digital workflow - what do you do, and why?

sanking
20-Mar-2009, 16:55
Paul,

If you never plan to print in the wet darkroom and develop only to scan the best procedure is to develop your film to a fairly low N, say N-1. Negatives low in contrast scan better than high contrast negatives, especially if you are working with a consumer flatbed scanner.

Sandy King



Is there any point to specifying contrast controls (i.e. N+1, N-1 development) at the development stage when the negative is going to be scanned, post-processed and inkjet printed?

With the ability to significantly alter overall contrast and local contrast within Photoshop, is there any point in locking in a specific contrast 'profile' at the stage of negative development?

Or to put it another way, if the negative is going to be scanned, then shouldn't I really be aiming for a negative that encompasses the broadest range of tones possible, while retaining a safety margin for scanning, knowing that I can achieve my contrast visualization in post processing?

If there are any b&w shooters out there who are using a hybrid darkroom/digital workflow - what do you do, and why?

Bruce Watson
20-Mar-2009, 17:10
Is there any point to specifying contrast controls (i.e. N+1, N-1 development) at the development stage when the negative is going to be scanned, post-processed and inkjet printed?

If you are *ever* going to print the film in the darkroom, then optimize for the darkroom. It will scan just fine. If you will *never* print in the darkroom, then you might as well optimize for scanning. This of course depends on your scanner, software, workflow, etc. so you'll have to do some experimentation to find your personal version of optimal. But typically this involves somewhat lower contrast than what you'd want for darkroom printing.


With the ability to significantly alter overall contrast and local contrast within Photoshop, is there any point in locking in a specific contrast 'profile' at the stage of negative development?

There can be. Some skilled Zone System practitioners really like the discipline and the workflow. And there's no real reason to abandon it if you like it.


Or to put it another way, if the negative is going to be scanned, then shouldn't I really be aiming for a negative that encompasses the broadest range of tones possible, while retaining a safety margin for scanning, knowing that I can achieve my contrast visualization in post processing?

No. Really, you wouldn't. I've been there and tried that and it doesn't work the way you'd think. What you really want is more compression of tones.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, graininess is directly related to density. More density gives you more graininess. Sometimes much more, depending on film, developer, etc.

Second, Callier Effect is also directly related to density. More density means more metalic silver, which means more light scatter. The effect in the scan file is a compression of the highlights. Yes, you can correct in Photoshop. But why would you want to if you don't have to?


If there are any b&w shooters out there who are using a hybrid darkroom/digital workflow - what do you do, and why?

What I do won't necessarily work for anyone else. But what I did was basically apply the Zone System to optimizing for my drum scanner. That is, I found my personal EI just like the books teach, then my personal "N" development time.

I parted with tradition by finding my "N" time for my scanner and software. This turns out to be in my case about "N-1" or so for darkroom printing. IOW, a Zone VIII of about log 1.0.

Then I really departed from the Zone System. What I do is expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may. That is, I use my "N" development time for all my film. I don't bother with N+ and N- development at all. The scanner can easily handle the variations in Dmax, and it's one less thing to have to think about in the field.

Will it work for you? Depends on what you want. But it works really well for me, and that's really all I can tell you.

Steve Gledhill
21-Mar-2009, 06:39
Paul,

An interesting question which I faced up to about 3 years ago. I decided that I'm unlikely to want to put my negatives through the darkroom again, so everything I now do is for scanning and ink printing. After some trials (and errors) I concluded that for my workflow I no longer need to process anything other than N. [I use Tmax 100 & Tmax400]. The N for my workflow equates to about N-1 for my previous darkroom workflow - so I now process my negatives slightly thinner than I did for the darkroom. The scanner can deal with practically any negative density range that I give it. This still means that you have to pay careful attention to the exposure of the negative and its processing for the shadows - of course. This gives rise for me to a change from "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" to what I call "expose for the shadows, scan for the highlights". It works for me - with the huge advantage that all my film now gets processed together regardless of what "N+/-" it was.

There may be some merit in retaining different processing times, but I can't discern any meaningful difference that would make we want to revert from my current practice.

Ralph Barker
21-Mar-2009, 08:12
To examine the issue from a different perspective, the N+/- approach can be viewed as extracting the maximum amount of actual image data from the scene. As such, regardless of the printing method that is intended to be used, there is still valid reason for adjusting exposure and development to compensate for the brightness range in the original scene.

Steve Gledhill
21-Mar-2009, 08:33
To examine the issue from a different perspective, the N+/- approach can be viewed as extracting the maximum amount of actual image data from the scene. As such, regardless of the printing method that is intended to be used, there is still valid reason for adjusting exposure and development to compensate for the brightness range in the original scene.
Ralph,
I could adjust my sweeping comments and conclusions in my previous post in the case of a scene with a very low subject brightness range - so N+ development would be better (to some extent) to stretch the negative density range than doing it in the scan / photoshop. But with a scene with a very long SBR, if the scanner can deal with the high negative density then why shrink the negative density range to something much less than the scanner can handle. For me (and I stress for me) practically everything I do is processed the same and produces negatives from which I can scan the whole from clear film base to the highest density highlights. I guess I rarely have any very low SBR images but I do have many with extremely high SBR.

Bruce Watson
21-Mar-2009, 09:30
To examine the issue from a different perspective, the N+/- approach can be viewed as extracting the maximum amount of actual image data from the scene.

I don't agree. My reading of various books on the topic has led me to believe that the reason for the Zone System approach was not to extract the maximum amount of image data from the scene. It was instead to expand or compress the image data on film to more closely match the required density range for the exposure and processing of photo paper. IOW, one would use N+/- development to translate the SBR (large or small) into the more limited density range that photo paper can easily handle, thus making it "easy" to print on a number 2 paper in the darkroom.

With scanning, this is no longer necessary or even desirable, because a scanner is "active" (the operator sets the black and white points for each image individually) while photo paper is "passive" (the operator gets whatever characteristics the manufacturer builds into the emulsion of the photo paper and has very limited ability to modify it).

That said, if one is *ever* going to print a negative in the darkroom one should optimize the negative for darkroom printing. It will scan just fine. But if one will *only* scan the film, one might as well optimize one's workflow for scanning. And for me that means changing the principle of "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" to "expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may."

Clearly there are many paths to the waterfall and everyone needs to find their own path. IOW, YMMV.

sanking
21-Mar-2009, 09:48
I agree with Bruce. One expands or compresses the highlights to match the DR of the process. This does not make the negative better or worse.

If one plans to scan and print digitally it makes sense to expose for the shadows and develop to a relatively low CI because this favors both grain and sharpness.

I personally continue to use BTZS for most of my LF and ULF because I want the option to contact print the negative in carbon transfer. However, these negatives can be somewhat more difficult to scan because of their high contrast.

Sandy King



I don't agree. My reading of various books on the topic has led me to believe that the reason for the Zone System approach was not to extract the maximum amount of image data from the scene. It was instead to expand or compress the image data on film to more closely match the required density range for the exposure and processing of photo paper.

Eric Leppanen
21-Mar-2009, 10:55
I expose for the shadows and shoot two sheets for each composition, so that after processing the first sheet normally I can N+/- process the second sheet if necessary. However, I find that the second sheet is rarely needed since my goal now is to match the DR of a drum scanner, not the far more limited DR of traditional B&W photographic paper. I pull process only if the highlights are getting blown out on the film itself, and push slightly only if the negative is unusually flat. Since a pull or push is rarely needed, the second sheet has really become more of a failsafe than anything else.

For my landscape work, it used to be necessary to occasionally pull process to avoid blown out skies, but judicious use of dark yellow and orange filters for "blue sky control" has eliminated this problem.

Happily, many of my negatives work well for both traditional and hybrid workflows. But I no longer contract my negatives to conform to traditional photographic paper, as this would compromise the tonal separation otherwise achievable with a drum scan. If the DR exceeds what traditional paper can handle, I just print digitally.

mandoman7
21-Mar-2009, 23:03
I'm not that experienced, but it seems like some scenes can tolerate a thin negative and then there are others that are harder to get right. A normal sunlit scene that has good exposure but weak development can scan amazingly well it seems. The foggy scenes that I've been shooting lately, with low density ranges, don't seem to expand so well by just using photoshop though. When I've given 20% more development there seems to be a more delicate kind of brightness, if that's not too BS'y.

Isn't there a different amount of density difference between lower, mid, and higher values so that where things are placed is not actually linear?

John

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 07:12
John,

A foggy scene will be very low in contrast so it would certainly do no harm to expand the values in development. However, even in this case I don't believe it is absolutely necessary.

I am attaching an image made in very flat light in late October of last year at a workshop in Ontario. The shot was made early in the morning in very heavy fog and was exposed for the shadows. A reading for brightness at the time indicated it was about SBR 5.5. I was not keeping good notes because my duties at the time were to assist the students so I later developed the film, along with other rolls shot in different lighting conditions, in a two-bath developer that limits highlight density. The so CI is quite low, equal to about N-1 or even less.

I scanned the negative and expanded the tonal range in Photoshop. The expansion was not linear as even after adjusting highlight and shadow values I had to do some curve adjustment to get good contrast in the mid-tone values. But it basically was not all that difficult to adjust and the resulting print has nice values to my eye, from some areas of good deep shadows to some nice highlight values, and the mid-tones have a lot of life.

There are few set rules about scanning as one can develop the negative to a rather wide range of CI and still get good results. I think in this instance your approach to expand the range in development would have worked well, but so did my approach which developed the film to a fairly low CI.

Sandy



I'm not that experienced, but it seems like some scenes can tolerate a thin negative and then there are others that are harder to get right. A normal sunlit scene that has good exposure but weak development can scan amazingly well it seems. The foggy scenes that I've been shooting lately, with low density ranges, don't seem to expand so well by just using photoshop though. When I've given 20% more development there seems to be a more delicate kind of brightness, if that's not too BS'y.

Isn't there a different amount of density difference between lower, mid, and higher values so that where things are placed is not actually linear?

John

mandoman7
22-Mar-2009, 08:38
I accept your point that even fairly compressed negatives can be brought to life. Your example is a nice image but the contrarian :D in me still senses some highlight compression, as balanced as the overall look might be.
Here's a recent shot that illustrates my concern. I wanted to get dark silhouettes on the trees yet keep a delicate sense of light on the hills in the background. Just trying to get it right...developed in PCat HD, by the way.

John

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 08:55
John,

That is a very nice image and the highlights certainly look about right.

Regarding the photograph I posted, bear in mind that you are just looking at my interpretation of the scene. I could easily adjust the curve of file to give less highlight compression if I wanted it. Also, the difficulty with expanding these kind of scans is not in getting the right balance in the shadows and in the highights, but adjusting the mid-tones for lively contrast. This is a lot more delicate operation because it is easy to run into posterization issues.

Sandy


QUOTE=mandoman7;451404]I accept your point that even fairly compressed negatives can be brought to life. Your example is a nice image but the contrarian :D in me still senses some highlight compression, as balanced as the overall look might be.
Here's a recent shot that illustrates my concern. I wanted to get dark silhouettes on the trees yet keep a delicate sense of light on the hills in the background. Just trying to get it right...developed in PCat HD, by the way.

John[/QUOTE]

Ken Lee
22-Mar-2009, 08:59
"Is there any point to specifying contrast controls (i.e. N+1, N-1 development) at the development stage when the negative is going to be scanned, post-processed and inkjet printed? "

Definitely.

My 2 cents (and let my photos speak for me as to the results):

If we start with a subject which displays a lovely natural range of tones, then with each step in the process, we try to map those tones to the next recording medium as best we can: introducing a minimum of artifacts, gaps, and distortions. If we expand or contract the range, it should be done in the way which spoils the next step, the least. In my limited experience, the earlier we contract or expand the contrast in the process, the better. If we do it during development, the resulting image will look most natural, rich, and... "analog".

Changing the subject or the lighting is best. Placing a filter in front of the lens comes next. Controlled exposure and development comes after that. Correction during scanning follows, and finally, if the image is still off, then corrections in the editing software come last.

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 10:07
As someone who has advocated very tight exposure and development controls with BTZS for many years I feel somewhat uncomfortable being on the "wrong" side of opinion in this discussion. There is no doubt in my mind but that if we are developing a negative to print in the medium of wet darkroom the tones need to be mapped as best we can for the process so that the density range of the negative should be as close as possible to the exposure scale of the process.

The problem in applying this concept to scanning, as I see it, is that there is no optimum CI for scanning to shoot for, even for normal scenes, as there is with a wet process. Assuming you set the end points of your histogram so that the scan just captures all of the range, but with no clipping, what difference does the original CI of the negative make, so long as the scanner can capture all of the highlight details? In other words, how would one determine an optimum CI for scanning based on the original scene since there is no specific exposure scale for scanning?

I have heard two entirely different theories on this from experienced drum scanner operators. One is of the opinion that one should develop negatives to a relatively low contrast, the other has stated that high contrast negatives of the type used for pt/pd printing give the best results.

Personally I just don't think it makes much difference, so long as you can capture highlight detail with your scanner. I have been able to make nice prints from both low contrast negatives and high contrast negatives of same type scene.


Sandy King

mandoman7
22-Mar-2009, 12:01
... Assuming you set the end points of your histogram so that the scan just captures all of the range, but with no clipping, what difference does the original CI of the negative make, so long as the scanner can capture all of the highlight details? ...

Sandy King

Out of curiosity, is this the standard method? Going by the histogram only for the scanning as versus using the visual clues from the preview?

JY

Ken Lee
22-Mar-2009, 12:04
"In other words, how would one determine an optimum CI for scanning based on the original scene since there is no specific exposure scale for scanning?"


I try to get the negative density range to occupy around 80% of the scanner range. This way, I never need to worry about exceeding the scanner range, IE blowing the high values or getting empty shadows.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that relying on development time to perform expansion and contraction, should give a more natural or analog result than doing the same via software and hardware.

The paradoxical thing is that neither film nor sensors are really either purely analog or digital.

Bruce Watson
22-Mar-2009, 12:41
Out of curiosity, is this the standard method? Going by the histogram only for the scanning as versus using the visual clues from the preview?

JY

Like most things photographic, it depends. In this case it depends on the image, and what you are trying to accomplish.

Most images, "normal" images, going by the histogram and setting your black and white points to just include the image without clipping is a valid rule of thumb. But it's only a guide. Some images will react badly to being scanned this way.

An example: I scanned a piece of color negative film for someone on this forum (this was a few years ago; I don't remember who it was for). The photograph was made on a westward looking coastline right at sunset. The sun wasn't in the image, but the image was full of specular reflections from sand, surf, wet rocks, etc. My drum scanner could and did easily read through the specular reflections, but my first try at scanning this film resulted in an extraordinary flat image because of it. After talking it over with the photographer to better ascertain his intent I proceeded to clip the hell out of the highlights -- clipping all those specular reflections. As a result, these tiny reflections went to paper white of course. But the image itself turned into a beautiful scene that needed little in editing. It was apparently a very good match to the photographers intent. Which in the end is what I try to deliver for people.

My point is, scanning is an art. Setting the black and white points are part of that art. Rules of thumb will only get you so far. To get the best scan you can, you have to handle each image individually and use your experience and aesthetics as your guides.

Joanna Carter
22-Mar-2009, 12:44
It is interesting that this thread has just happened; I have been experimenting with setting up my own "digital printing" zone system. I would agree with the majority opinion that N+/- development is, in the most part, redundant.

My findings, using Fuji Acros 100 are as follows :

Exposure range of the film seems limited to around 9 stops if I want to retain detail in shadows and highlights.

If you were to place shadows with detail in zone 3 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 1" for scanning.

If you were to place highlight with detail in zone 7 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 10" for scanning.

http://grandes-images.com/images/SaltaireUnitedReformedChurch.jpg

I took this shot with around 12 stops between the shadows behind the back pews and the light coming through the windows; although it is difficult to see in this jpg file, there is detail of the frosting on the windows but although there is vague detail behind the pews, it could have done with a tad more exposure (around 1.5 stops).

I developed the neg in Ilford DD-X for the N time and found that the neg scanned well within the histogram range allowed in the Epson V700 scanner software.

My conclusions are that I would tend to plan to develop any negative for N- whatever the brightness range over and above 9 stops between shadow detail and highlight detail. Thus for this shot, I should have developed for N-2.

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 13:18
The point Bruce made treating every negative or transparency individually for the scan is important. However, by the time the negative or transparency gets to the scanner the decision on how to develop it has already been made, so we have to work with what is there.

My basic opinion is this. Regardless of whether you develop a negative to a CI of .45 or to a CI of .95 the film itself is continuous tone between Dmin and Dmax, so the number of steps you have will be strictly a product of whether you scan in low bit or high bit. In other words, a low contrast negative with a DR of .15-1.25 will have exactly the same number of tonal values in the scan file as a negative with a DR of .15-2.25. So the main issue would be whether the scanner can handle a Dmax value of 2.25.

In fact, even if we decided for artistic reasons to clip information in either the shadows or highlights, the scan itself will stay have the same number of tonal levels, depending on whether it is high or low bit. In fact, I have seen some beautiful high key prints made this way.

Sandy King

Bruce Watson
22-Mar-2009, 13:41
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that relying on development time to perform expansion and contraction, should give a more natural or analog result than doing the same via software and hardware.

Many years ago an old engineer gave me just an excellent lesson: "What we believe won't change the facts." He was soooo right about that.

When I was first starting out with scanning I believed that since my scanner could easily read densities way up over 3.0, that I should develop my film to have a Dmax in that range. My thought was that this would spread my tones out over a larger density range and therefore give me even better tonality than usual.

But I'm an engineer. I test things. Can't help myself. And when I put my belief to the test, it failed. Miserably. B&W film doesn't much like being treated like this. I was getting a "cooked" look and not the nice smooth tones I thought I should be getting. I won't even go into the decreased sharpness, the nasty graininess, or any of the ugly artifacts.

Having proved myself wrong, I set about trying to find out what was "right." I experimented with density and scanning for about six months before I got a good solid handle on what was actually happening with my workflow and my scanner.

What I found in the end was that for my workflow and my scanner, I got the best looking prints, that is the nicest tonality, nice clean sharp detail, consistent local contrast from shadows to highlights, all that... when I was developing to a Zone VIII density of about 1.0. If I can hit that density, and I'm having a good day scanning, I can sometimes get a scan file that's a "straight print" in that it doesn't really require any editing at all. No levels adjustments, no curves adjustments. Just spotting, some sharpening, and off to the printer. That... is optimal. At least for me.

So if I were going to do the full Zone System thing, my "N" development would give me a Zone VIII density of around 1.0, and I'd be using N+/- to get every sheet to arrive at that Zone VIII density. Which I tried for a while, and which worked quite well for me.

Then it dawned on me that this perhaps wasn't necessary. There's optimal, but what's the acceptable range around optimal? More testing ensued. What I found was that letting the individual films vary around my Zone VIII density wasn't bad. In fact, because it let me dispense with the record keeping and in-the-field development decisions, and therefore concentrate more on the art, it was very good indeed.

What I found, for my materials, my workflow, my scanner, my images, all that, is that I can develop all my exposures, from full mid-day sun to full overcast, to the same "N" development time. The Dmaxes vary within a range, this is true. But it all scans just fine. Almost every file requires some editing. But I would edit them anyway to fine tune tonalities (aka, dodging and burning). That's just photography.

What it all came down to for me was what I'd learned from the Zone System with a simplification. That is, find your EI, find your "N" development time, then... expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may.

In the last five years or so I've run through maybe a thousand sheets of 5x4 working like this. I can say from experience that this method really does work quite well for me. I suspect that it will work equally well for others who want to optimize for scanning.

Ed Richards
22-Mar-2009, 13:58
The only caveat I have with Bruce's recommendations is that with my consumer flatbed I do better if I keep the highlights I want detail in a little thinner than he does with his drum scanner. So I never use N+, but I use N-2 in high contrast scenes. I also push the shadows down as much as I can, rather than trying to preserve all detail everywhere, because the film scans so much better when it has as little exposure as necessary for the shadow detail I need.

Bruce Watson
22-Mar-2009, 15:30
The only caveat I have with Bruce's recommendations is that with my consumer flatbed I do better if I keep the highlights I want detail in a little thinner than he does with his drum scanner. So I never use N+, but I use N-2 in high contrast scenes. I also push the shadows down as much as I can, rather than trying to preserve all detail everywhere, because the film scans so much better when it has as little exposure as necessary for the shadow detail I need.

Just like doing the Zone System tests which calibrate your film, developer, process, lenses, shutters, etc. One has to do the equivalent to customize development for one's scanner, hardware, workflow, images, intent, etc. That's as it should be.

I too have found that over time I've been pushing shadow detail down below Zone III, maybe Zone II 1/2, even down to Zone II on occasion. The film records the detail and the scanner does a good job reading it. In the darkroom photo paper would render this as a featureless dark gray. I never bring this up however -- I cause enough consternation as it is. ;)

One problem with this however is that sometimes I find that I want more tonal spacing between the detail and full black. The extra Photoshop work to produce that is what keeps me from pushing the shadow detail down too far. Again, YMMV.

Ken Lee
22-Mar-2009, 16:55
"Regardless of whether you develop a negative to a CI of .45 or to a CI of .95 the film itself is continuous tone between Dmin and Dmax, so the number of steps you have will be strictly a product of whether you scan in low bit or high bit. In other words, a low contrast negative with a DR of .15-1.25 will have exactly the same number of tonal values in the scan file as a negative with a DR of .15-2.25. So the main issue would be whether the scanner can handle a Dmax value of 2.25."

"B&W film doesn't much like being treated like this. I was getting a "cooked" look and not the nice smooth tones I thought I should be getting. I won't even go into the decreased sharpness, the nasty graininess, or any of the ugly artifacts."

"Exposure range of the film seems limited to around 9 stops if I want to retain detail in shadows and highlights. If you were to place shadows with detail in zone 3 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 1" for scanning. If you were to place highlight with detail in zone 7 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 10" for scanning."

Are these statements consistent ?

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 17:11
Ken,

The first quote is by me.

The other two quotes address entirely different issues than the one I addressed, so in that sense they are neither consistent or incoinsistent with what I wrote.

I am curious why you think there may be some lack of consistency?

Sandy






"Regardless of whether you develop a negative to a CI of .45 or to a CI of .95 the film itself is continuous tone between Dmin and Dmax, so the number of steps you have will be strictly a product of whether you scan in low bit or high bit. In other words, a low contrast negative with a DR of .15-1.25 will have exactly the same number of tonal values in the scan file as a negative with a DR of .15-2.25. So the main issue would be whether the scanner can handle a Dmax value of 2.25."

"B&W film doesn't much like being treated like this. I was getting a "cooked" look and not the nice smooth tones I thought I should be getting. I won't even go into the decreased sharpness, the nasty graininess, or any of the ugly artifacts."

"Exposure range of the film seems limited to around 9 stops if I want to retain detail in shadows and highlights. If you were to place shadows with detail in zone 3 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 1" for scanning. If you were to place highlight with detail in zone 7 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 10" for scanning."

Are these statements consistent ?

Ken Lee
22-Mar-2009, 17:43
Sorry, I'm just confused.

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 23:12
Joana,

Beautiful image. Love the symmetry and the luminosity. I meant to comment earlier but got involved with other things.

Sandy





It is interesting that this thread has just happened; I have been experimenting with setting up my own "digital printing" zone system. I would agree with the majority opinion that N+/- development is, in the most part, redundant.

My findings, using Fuji Acros 100 are as follows :

Exposure range of the film seems limited to around 9 stops if I want to retain detail in shadows and highlights.

If you were to place shadows with detail in zone 3 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 1" for scanning.

If you were to place highlight with detail in zone 7 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 10" for scanning.

http://grandes-images.com/images/SaltaireUnitedReformedChurch.jpg

I took this shot with around 12 stops between the shadows behind the back pews and the light coming through the windows; although it is difficult to see in this jpg file, there is detail of the frosting on the windows but although there is vague detail behind the pews, it could have done with a tad more exposure (around 1.5 stops).

I developed the neg in Ilford DD-X for the N time and found that the neg scanned well within the histogram range allowed in the Epson V700 scanner software.

My conclusions are that I would tend to plan to develop any negative for N- whatever the brightness range over and above 9 stops between shadow detail and highlight detail. Thus for this shot, I should have developed for N-2.

Keith Tapscott.
23-Mar-2009, 01:42
Just a suggestion, you might be better off using a soft working, fine-grain two-bath developer such as Tetenal Emofin and use their times for a modest contrast value of beta = 0.55.
I`m not particularly fond of the look of silver-prints made from two-bath developers, but it would produce negatives that are ideal for scanning IMHO. As I say, just a suggestion.:)

www.tetenal.co.uk

Bruce Watson
23-Mar-2009, 06:14
"Regardless of whether you develop a negative to a CI of .45 or to a CI of .95 the film itself is continuous tone between Dmin and Dmax, so the number of steps you have will be strictly a product of whether you scan in low bit or high bit. In other words, a low contrast negative with a DR of .15-1.25 will have exactly the same number of tonal values in the scan file as a negative with a DR of .15-2.25. So the main issue would be whether the scanner can handle a Dmax value of 2.25."

"B&W film doesn't much like being treated like this. I was getting a "cooked" look and not the nice smooth tones I thought I should be getting. I won't even go into the decreased sharpness, the nasty graininess, or any of the ugly artifacts."

"Exposure range of the film seems limited to around 9 stops if I want to retain detail in shadows and highlights. If you were to place shadows with detail in zone 3 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 1" for scanning. If you were to place highlight with detail in zone 7 for wet processing, then you can safely place such detail in "zone 10" for scanning."

Are these statements consistent ?

They are about different sub-topics under the main topic of how to optimize film for scanning IMHO. I don't see how they could be consistent since they aren't about the same things. However, they aren't in conflict either.

Ken Lee
23-Mar-2009, 08:33
Okee dokee. I was confused. :o

willwilson
23-Mar-2009, 08:55
I do very little film scanning, except to salvage a damaged negative, but I have extensive digital editing experience. This thread is very interesting.

Should I assume that you do not gain additional detail and tonal separation by using the full capacity of the negative to record tonal values? From reading this thread it sounds like low contrast and lower typical max density are preferred and there is not a lot gained with expansion or contraction development for low/high contrast scenes.

I always thought you would want to have a scan that produced a digital file with the most information possible (Tonal, shadow detail, highlight, etc). Why would you limit your options by not using the full ability of your film to record image data through the zone system or some form of modified exposure and development technique if your scanner can handle it?

One confused mostly analog printer,

-=Will

Tyler Boley
23-Mar-2009, 09:23
...
I always thought you would want to have a scan that produced a digital file with the most information possible (Tonal, shadow detail, highlight, etc). Why would you limit your options by not using the full ability of your film to record image data through the zone system or some form of modified exposure and development technique if your scanner can handle it?

One confused mostly analog printer,

-=Will


I think the confusion here lies with defining what "the full ability of your film" is, in this workflow. Obviously exposure issues apply, development issues possibly less so in terms of SBR capture ability. What we were really doing in the darkroom with the Zone System (IMHO) was tailoring our process to the abilities of the paper, as well as the film. So clearly we were limiting the films density ability, to suit the papers.
Issues of resolution and grain enter into this "ability" definition as well, as Bruce has discussed. So if you are no longer dealing with fitting your scene, ultimately, onto photographic paper, the entire process and each step, requires rethinking. Properly exposed, film could be said to be fully utilized under a wide variety of development situations, as long as it has not blocked up, so again, final print process determines how best the films ability has been exploited. Additionally, how has it's optimal grain/sharpness performance been best used as well?
Hope I have not confused matters.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

Ed Richards
23-Mar-2009, 12:09
> Additionally, how has it's optimal grain/sharpness performance been best used as well?

This is where you see a major trade-off. You get less grain and better sharpness by not pushing Dmax, but you do lose extra dymanic range that could be coded by going to a higher Dmax. Bruce brought this to my attention some time back, and paying attention to it has really improved my negatives.

BTW, I can imagine a situtation where I might use N+ with a really low constrast scene, I just do not seem to see those in my shooting. (I am sure they are there, I just do not SEE them.)

Bruce Watson
23-Mar-2009, 12:40
> Additionally, how has it's optimal grain/sharpness performance been best used as well?

This is where you see a major trade-off. You get less grain and better sharpness by not pushing Dmax, but you do lose extra dynamic range that could be coded by going to a higher Dmax.

That's an interesting question all by itself. I remember looking, but not closely, to see if there was any change in tonality, or the ability to render tonal detail when I decreased development and therefore lowered contrast index. I don't remember seeing anything like that, so I didn't pursue it.

What I wonder is whether or not the lowering of the density range for the image means that I also lower the image's tonal detail, or at least the ability to record tonal detail (maximum range of tonal detail?).

The reason I wonder is because scanners don't see the film like humans do. Scanners are sharper and can see more tones than we mere humans. But I just got done recently with all the testing I needed to do to switch over to TMY-2 from Tri-X. I think I've got it pretty well down now, and I'm tired of testing. This spring I think I'll just make photographs. What I can afford anyway. :D

Tyler Boley
23-Mar-2009, 13:07
Bruce, Lindbloom's little "levels" app is a great tool for working these things out. Unfortunately it only runs in Classic, and is old. You'd have to scan several negs exposed and/or developed differently of the same image, try to then bring the files to the same tonal state, in scanner software or photoshop, then open them in levels and have it report back the number of levels in the files.
All that and you may be back where you started. So go out and shoot, better use of that pricey film this year.
Tyler

marschp
23-Mar-2009, 15:00
Wow - looks like I opened up a rich seam of thought and ideas on this question. I've read this thread through a couple of times now and taken a lot from it, so thanks to all contributors. Seems to me like the consensus is to optimize development for your own workflow/equipment (scanner) etc. and that most contributors thought this required a lower contrast development.

My original post was prompted by my recent experience in the field, trying to make a creative decision on a particular scene (already low SBR) which I thought might benefit (in a creative sense) from an even lower contrast rendering in print. I shot two negatives, one exposed in my usual way and for N development, and one overexposed by one zone but with N-2 development in mind. Both negatives have proved capable of scanning and producing the desired print output with very little to tell between them.

However, maybe the benefit of continuing to think in terms of expanded/contracted development times is really a creative benefit rather than a technical one in that it encourages me to think about (or visualize) the final print at the time of exposure, rather than during post-processing. Maybe this thought process acts as a useful filter out in the field when deciding whether to commit time and effort on an exposure in the first place. I'm still pretty new to b&w LF film but this has been a useful thread so thanks again.

sanking
23-Mar-2009, 15:20
I believe all of us enjoy this kind of discussion because there are no absolutes, and a lot of what we can do depends on the type scanner we are using. Those guys who have the drum scanners can scan pretty much anything thrown at them, folks like me with higher end flatbeds are a bit more limited, and if you have a consumer flatbed more limited still.

Regardless of what I have said in this thread, my working procedure for LF and ULF film is to expose and develop for printing with carbon transfer and palladium, shooting for a negative density range of about log 1.8 - 2.2 because I want to keep open the option to contact print my negatives, even though most of my printing is done with digital negatives. I use Pyrocat-HD and label the film in the field with stickies to show what kind of development is needed. I have done this so long, and understand it so well, there is really no point to not optimize for the long DR of the only processes I print with.

For MF I treat everything the same way. I expose for the shadows and develop everything to a low contrast, either by time and temperature with Pyrocat-HD or with a two -bath developer.


Sandy King




Wow - looks like I opened up a rich seam of thought and ideas on this question. I've read this thread through a couple of times now and taken a lot from it, so thanks to all contributors. Seems to me like the consensus is to optimize development for your own workflow/equipment (scanner) etc. and that most contributors thought this required a lower contrast development.

My original post was prompted by my recent experience in the field, trying to make a creative decision on a particular scene (already low SBR) which I thought might benefit (in a creative sense) from an even lower contrast rendering in print. I shot two negatives, one exposed in my usual way and for N development, and one overexposed by one zone but with N-2 development in mind. Both negatives have proved capable of scanning and producing the desired print output with very little to tell between them.

However, maybe the benefit of continuing to think in terms of expanded/contracted development times is really a creative benefit rather than a technical one in that it encourages me to think about (or visualize) the final print at the time of exposure, rather than during post-processing. Maybe this thought process acts as a useful filter out in the field when deciding whether to commit time and effort on an exposure in the first place. I'm still pretty new to b&w LF film but this has been a useful thread so thanks again.

mandoman7
23-Mar-2009, 20:45
On the question of scanning without getting the full range of a negatives tones, that's happening fairly often in analog printing as well. Its a tradeoff that's teathered by the desire to keep a realistic look to the print.

If you print a lot in the darkroom, you'll often see tones in the negative that you aren't able to get in the print without doing manipulations that look artificial. So you realize that some compromises are unavoidable for a balanced looking print.

It has to do with the eye making adjustments for contrast as you view the details of a scene in reality, and those adjustments not being so available in the global picture. This might be one of the criticisms of the HDR stuff that photoshop is touting. There's a limit to what compression can do for you.

JY