How To Make Very Dense Negatives

[mdm]

If you want a negative with a density range of slightly more than log 3, how do you do it? (You can make a carbon print with 20 or 21 tones on a 21 step wedge.)

Lets use the sunny 16 rule on FP4+ as a baseline.
f16 at 1/125 in sun with hard shadows.
f8 at 1/125 in overcast conditions with almost no shadows.
f5.6 at 1/125 in open shade with no shadows visible

How would you expose and develop in theese 3 situations to get the density range you are after. Agitation, timing, developer choice etc. Film choice? (I use FP4 and Pyrocat M)

You do not have a densiometer. You have the simplest light meter if any. You are denser than a brick shithouse yourself.

I need help but please keep it simple.

[panchro-press]

Density is a function of exposure; contrast is a function of development.

That's as simple as I can make it.

Dave

[Vaughn]

I don't find such general readings useful. I like to know the range of light available and go from there.

For example, I took a photo of three redwood snags -- on my Pentax digital spot meter, I got values of 3 to 11 (average is 7). I would treat this negative much differently than a scene that was 5 to 9 -- still an average of 7. This is why an incident meter for me is next to useless.

Anyway, I exposed the redwood snags at 4 -- it was a 5 min exposure on FP4+ (at 125ASA) and I was willing to lose a little detail in the areas I measured at 3 (due to reciprocity failure of the film). In theory, the highlights fell on Zone XII.

I developed it in Ilford PQ Universal Developer, a fairly active developer -- 50 parts to 950 parts (1:19) in a Expert drum at 68F for about 8 minutes ("normal" development, is ~4 minutes) bumping up the highlights to perhaps XIV or so.

Made a very nice carbon print -- for fun, I used a sharpie on the glass part way through the exposure to maintain detail/texture in the darkest area of the image (inside a hollow log). I used an 8% Ammonium dichromate solution, diluted 1:3 with acetone (total volume of 20 ml).

A neg that only has a range of 4 or 5 stops I would use the developer at 1:9 and cook it a more.

The way I really bumped up the contrast was to use Kodak copy film in HC-110. A little too much development and I would get bullet proof highlights...some I could still print through.

I'll try some D-19 one of these days -- as a high contrast developer, it should help with those negs that only have a 5 stop range.

Hope this is of a little help.

PS...as a reference, I took another neg of the same snags right before, but with my boys in the scene. Exposed at 5 -- only a minute exposure, so less reciprocity failure to compensate for. I wanted to make a platinum print from it (part of a series), so it did not need the high contrast -- developed it 1:19 for 5 minutes instead of the 8 minutes of the other neg. Made a great platinum/palladium neg (no contrast agent needed). A scan of the pt print:

[ki6mf]

Some simple way to make more dense negatives are stronger agitation and if you use a diluted developer change the dilution level. If you use a spot meter and meter for the shadows vary development time, as stated above, to change contrast time.

A good tutorial on line is at http://www.jerryo.com/teaching.htm

[Ken Lee]

I have modified the title of this thread to better comply with Forum guidelines - which encourage a "professional" decorum. :)

[Brian Ellis]

Your header refers to making "very dense negatives." Your question asks how one would expose and develop to get the density "range" you want. To some extent they're two different questions. You increase overall density (shadows, mid-tones, and highlights) by exposure. You control density "range" by development.

So if all you want is an overall denser than normal negative just over-expose (relative to your normal exposure for a particular scene) by as many effective stops as you need. To increase the density range, over-develop (relative to your normal development time) by as long as you think you need to get the highlights (and, to a lesser extent, the mid-tones) denser than normal. Increased development time has little effect on the shadow areas because they're fully developed approximately a third of the way through the development time.

You obviously need to know what your "normal" exposure time would be for a particular scene and what your "normal" development time is before you can determine your increased exposure and development time. The Sunny 16 rule you mention is a crude way of determining a "normal" exposure and you could use the film manufacturer's suggested development time as a crude "normal" development time. Appropriate simple testing would allow you to be more precise as to your normal exposure and development times for a given scene and by how much you overexpose and overdevelop to obtain the negative you want.

[ic-racer]

Divide your target negative density range by the scene range to obtain the gamma you need for your film development.

So, if your scene is log 2 in range and you want log 3 on your negatiave then you need to process to a gamma of 1.5

[sanking]

You would expose for a carbon negative no differently than for any other process. My method would be to determine where I want textured detail in the shadows and take an incident meter reading at that spot,. You should never over-expose for carbon or for any other alternative process as it makes what are already very long exposures almost interminable.

To get the contrast you want, say a DR of log 3.0, you just develop the film much longer than would be normal for silver printing. With Pyrocat-MC and FP4+ I would suggest around 12-15 minutes with the 1+1+50 dilution with rotary processing at 70F.

I would give you precise data but I am traveling and don't have access to my WinPlotter files.

Sandy

[mdm]

Thank you for the replies.

My negatives are not dense enough for the exposure time that gets the best out of my tissue. Now I know why. 1:1:50 and continuous agitation.

I can see now how much of a time saver digital negatives would be and they are next on the list. I have no ambition to make big prints so really value the simplicity of a camera negative too.

Sorry to make work for you Ken. You are a very understanding lot, moderators.

[mdm]

I developed it in Ilford PQ Universal Developer, a fairly active developer -- 50 parts to 950 parts (1:19) in a Expert drum at 68F for about 8 minutes ("normal" development, is ~4 minutes) bumping up the highlights to perhaps XIV or so.


Thanks Vaughn, I had a look but am unable to get PQ Universal here, would have loved to try it as it clearly works for you. I will keep my eyes peeled.

I may try the Ilford distributor directly tomorrow.

Actually, it is similar to Ilford Multigrade Developer, which I have already. So Bobs your uncle.

[Vaughn]

I have no idea how similar the Multigrade developer will be. Ilford's use of the word "Universal" is to indicate that it can be used for both paper and film, and Ilford's data sheet for the Universal does give times for sheet film.

Back when I was using primarily Tri-X in 5x7, I was developing in HC-110, Dilution B for up to 25 minutes with continous agitation in trays -- very boring, but productive. The film did not show much increase in base fog with this combination...which can be an issue with such long development times (chemical fogging -- even, but extra density to print through.)

The pryo developers are good tools and I need to re-look at them. My previous use of them was years ago -- back when they still recommended a staining bath after fixing which just added an over-all stain and created very long exposure times.

PS -- looking back on my notes, the example image above is actually a negative scan. Truth in advertising and all that -- but it did make a great pt/pd print.

[mdm]

I developed some negatives last night with Pyrocat M 1:1:50 in tubes and some in bags with pretty much constant agitation, both 15 minutes. The tubes came out dense and the bag developed negatives look nice but less dense. My sky problems in bags were related to insufficient agitation. I am happy with the result and will try and print some of them soon.

Mutigrade has the same active ingredients as PQ Universal but probably has different chemistry. Worth a try one day.

Someone else suggested caffenol c, I have used it and it would work but it is foul puke inducing stuff and probably more expensive than Pyrocat M mixed up at home. It is an option too.

Thanks

[Lynn Jones]

The most reasonable way to do this with this kind of contrast and density is to scan a negative you like, manipulate it and inkjet print it on the appropriate clear plastic.

Lynn

[mdm]

I agree, but to learn carbon transfer with digital negatives is probably not a good idea. It is not an easy process and takes a lot of practice to get it all working the way it should, which is why I am printing from negatives. It may not always be productive but you learn all sorts of things about your tissue and dichromate concentration and exposure. And technique. It makes sense to burn film untill you are ready for digital negatives because pictorico and ink is expensive stuff. Some practical knowledge helps to minimise the waste.

[Jim Noel]

FP4+ developed in almost any general use paper developer builds contrast very rapidly.

[mdm]

Thanks for all the help. My printing times have gone up by a stop to half a stop.

[onnect17]

I have some test negatives developed in Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100 with density = 3.5
I'm guessing other pyro developers could work too.

[sanking]

David,

I know something about carbon transfer printing and in my opinion you are going in the wrong direction trying to make very dense negatives. Very dense to me means that there is more density in the shadow area than necessary, and this merely increases exposure time. What you want to do with carbon transfer is control the contrast of the negative so that it is in the log 1.4 to log 3.5 range. Did you notice the extreme range of negatives that work with carbon transfer. That is because we have process control with dichromate that allows us to print negatives of this extreme density range.

What I would suggest to accelerate your learning experinece is to purchase a TP 45 Stouiffer step wedge and learn to print carbon with it. This is a 4X5 21 step wedge with a differene of about log .15 between steps. Testing with the step wedge should make it very clear for you to see the difference in exposure scale that results from the use of dichromate sensitizers of different strengths. Once you understand this relationship you can then transfer it to you real negatives.

I consider the use of a step wedge one of the most important control steps in my work with carbon transfer, and all other alternative processes for that matter.

Sandy King

[mdm]

I print a 21 step wedge at the top of every negative. It is 5 inches long and taped to my mask so works perfectly with a 5x7 negative. When I asked this question I had just made a batch of 4 transfers with a 11 min exposure with 6% AD, producing wonderful wedges with 19 or so steps but apalling, dark prints. I have made nice prints with shorter exposures, 8 minutes, but they have poor relief and dont have a good black.

I made some negatives with 1:1:50 Pyrocat M as you suggested, some using btzs tubes and some developed in a bag with constant agitation, which made the prettiest negatives. Today I printed 6 of them. 11 min with 4% AD was about right for the bag developed negative and I have posted a scan of that on the carbon forum. My tube developed negatives print well between 14 minutes and 11 minutes depending on the negative, with 4% AD, giving me 17 steps on a wedge. I made 2 prints with a 22min exposure and 4% AD giving me 20 odd steps and huge relief but again dark overexposed prints (and wonderful moody skies). Three of those negatives I will print again with less exposure or different contrast.

So you can see where I am going. I am learning what I can get out of my tissue, what sort of negative I need to maximise its potential. I am not trying to produce density for density's sake.

When I have printed enough negatives of different density ranges to understand exactly what exposure and AD concentration produces the nicest prints, then I will print a colour chart thing and produce a curve for making digital negatives. In PDN you need to produce a wedge with 2 equally black steps to get your standard exposure. Carbon is not like that, my wedges just keep on getting blacker untill I print through the tissue. (And the blacks in my prints are not washed out.) I need to come to that standard exposure time by experience. When I get there I will be able to make nice 5x7 contact prints and digital negative prints. I understand I will need to develop film differently to scan and contact print.

[mdm]

Ok, I'll think some more.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

David, I have had great success with negative that do not have huge density ranges. I mean I have many prints with generous relief and the neg's DR is 1.2 to 1.7. I try for around 2.00 using my standard developer which is Pyrocat HD 2:2:100. My 8x10's are done 4 at a time in tanks with standard agitation. Now i shoot Efke 25 and my times are about 14-16 minutes and this gives me my target density ranges. But i must say that the scene has to have the range of tones in it to begin with. As Sandy said you don't have to have bullet proof negatives. This just increases your exposure times. With carbon you control everything with your pigment load and dichromate dilution and to a certain degree the final support material you use. Carbon transfer is all about learning to use the controls you have to complete the vision. You have to print a lot and it will come together.

Jim

[Ari]

I'm not too technical about these things, so I would add that you start by increasing your developing time by 25%, then 50% as well as increasing your developing temperature.
Instead of 21C, use 24C then 27C.
Find the sweet spot with this time/temperature combination.

[mdm]

David, I have had great success with negative that do not have huge density ranges. I mean I have many prints with generous relief and the neg's DR is 1.2 to 1.7. I try for around 2.00 using my standard developer which is Pyrocat HD 2:2:100. My 8x10's are done 4 at a time in tanks with standard agitation. Now i shoot Efke 25 and my times are about 14-16 minutes and this gives me my target density ranges. But i must say that the scene has to have the range of tones in it to begin with. As Sandy said you don't have to have bullet proof negatives. This just increases your exposure times. With carbon you control everything with your pigment load and dichromate dilution and to a certain degree the final support material you use. Carbon transfer is all about learning to use the controls you have to complete the vision. You have to print a lot and it will come together.

Jim

Thanks for that.

What I have decided to do is to take one negative and print it, with a step wedge, for a constant exposure but with different concentrations of AD, then with constant AD concentration and differnt exposures. I understand what AD concentration and exposure does to a step wedge, but translating that into an acceptable print is where the problem is. Looking at my prints and my scans, my highlights are now too dense for the scanner to get all the detail out out of them, so I think I am where I am ok as far as density range goes.