PDA

View Full Version : Using film development to control contrast



Ironage
20-Nov-2012, 07:16
Although I have been a roll film photographer for over 35 years, I have finally set up a darkroom for large format and am making my first experiments to refine my process. I have made my first prints using tentative materials, and the results are putrid!

What I did was take four sheets of identically exposed negatives, now I want to develop them one at a time, make the best possible print, make corrections in the development of the negative and make another print and hope I get it right before I run out of negatives. Never heard of anyone doing it this way, but I am because I don't think I should need a step wedge and a densitometer to get good pictures.

I am trying to use the incident system described in "Beyond the Zone System" and my enlarger has a non variable contrast cold light so I am hoping to be able to make good negatives that print consistently on grade 2 paper.

The lighting was very flat, an overcast day. Using a incident light meter there shade was EV 13 and full light was EV14. I exposed the frames on HP5 at ASA 500 using the shaded reading at f22 1/8 sec.

My first negative was developed in DK-50 in a Patterson orbital at 62 degrees (cold!) for 5:20. The negative appeared very dense to me, and required twice the exposure at the enlarger to get a decent but weak black. The shadow detail is great, but the highlights are muddy without good separation of tones. The print lacks punch. Yuck!

Now...here is my real question. Should I give the next negative more development to add contrast? This would be my instinct, but the density of the negative tells me to go with less development.

Ironage
20-Nov-2012, 07:26
Here is the first print. Please ignore the upper right where the developer didn't cover the paper during development. 36 secs. f16 8x10 Ilfobrom Gallerie grade 2.

83919

Ari
20-Nov-2012, 08:28
I'm no techie in these matters, but you underexposed the negative and then under-developed it; your result is completely in line with your procedure.
The lack of contrast tells me your first step should be to use a warmer solution, at least 68˚F.

Ironage
20-Nov-2012, 08:36
Ari, yup the cold developer was compensated for in the development time, but maybe too much. I turned the heat up in the darkroom and hope for closer to 68 degrees next time.

My hope with the underexposure was then to over-devolp it for more contrast in the dull lighting. The enlargement exposure was twice my normal in previous prints so it certainly is not over developed.

photobymike
20-Nov-2012, 09:07
I aways over expose slightly ... i like the hi-lights to have detail .... Just about a year ago i started using Pryocat HD in Glycol .... with varying amounts of A and B solution (very slight variations) i am able to control contrast ... i seem to get an extra stop or two on dynamic range also. My epson scanner just loves these negs....Oh TMAX films seem to work best < thats more opinion.

I call the these negs chocolate photos because of the cool brown colored negs.

Tmax 100 120!!! pentax 67 no filters.... If this was developed in HC110 or Rodinal there would be no detail in the clouds

83938

E. von Hoegh
20-Nov-2012, 09:23
Ansel Adams, "The Negative".

Bill Burk
20-Nov-2012, 10:04
You used the shadow incident reading (overexposure) and higher Exposure Index (underexposure) - so these tended to cancel each other out and you got correct exposure. You say you have plenty of shadow detail - that confirms it.

Your example is flat and you want to use Galerie 2 - so you need to increase the amount of development. I would call 68-degrees F +/- 2-degrees within control. You're "out of control" in a statistical sense when it comes to temperature. So get that under control and then refine your development times...

If you had to use this neg, Galerie 3 is available.

Pawlowski6132
20-Nov-2012, 10:51
Why not just start by trying to make a standard negative and a standard print? I guess it's too late now since you've exposed our film already but, very simply, if your negatives are too dense, too much development has occurred.

But, if you under exposed your negatives (shooting at a higher than rated ISO) and developed normally, we would have expected our negatives to come out too thin. Something else is going on here.

Ironage
20-Nov-2012, 11:03
Ansel Adams, "The Negative".

Yup, that book would be better.

Ironage
20-Nov-2012, 12:36
Why not just start by trying to make a standard negative and a standard print? .

I think you are right. A simpler subject would have helped, but it was a f16 1/400th day out there, and it hasn't been all week!

Bill Burk
20-Nov-2012, 13:40
Yup, that book would be better.

You also need Ansel Adams, "The Print". That's where he discusses Temperature Effects. The cold Yosemite darkroom made his prints softer.

A cold Metol-Hydroquinone developer will act like mostly a Metol developer according to Adams.

And according to Photographic Lab Handbook, John Carroll, Metol can bring up shadow detail early in the process but produces density only with difficulty. Looking at the time/temperature chart for DK-50 in that lab handbook, it's as if you gave 4 minutes development at 68-degrees F.

cyrus
20-Nov-2012, 14:40
I think as a general matter, particularly if you're starting out, you should stick to the established times and not vary too much until you've gotten used to the process.

Lenny Eiger
20-Nov-2012, 14:55
Curious, the choice of DK-50. I think there are lots of other developers that would be better if you are looking for smooth quality, less grain. Xtol, Pyro, come to mind... There's also D-23....

Lenny

Ironage
20-Nov-2012, 16:27
I made the choice to give a little less development on my next negative. The temperature was 68 degrees but instead of the 4 minutes calculated I tried 3:45. The negative looks better to me, but I will see when I print it how much better. Experience tells me it doesn't take much to make a very big difference.

Anyways, why DK-50? Cheap to soup yourself, and stays fresh for a long time. With the small amount I use most chemicals go bad before I use them up. I also think that the modest contrast increase that it gives will help with the cold light. I don't think that grain, and sharpness are a problem with 5 x 7 negatives making 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 prints. My darkroom size limits this.

With all the positive comments about Pyro that would be my next choice, and then probably I would try inspection developing. Since this set up is new to me, I may end up changing everything if I don't like these results.

I'll post my next print soon.

Ironage
20-Nov-2012, 16:29
You also need Ansel Adams, "The Print". That's where he discusses Temperature Effects. The cold Yosemite darkroom made his prints softer.

A cold Metol-Hydroquinone developer will act like mostly a Metol developer according to Adams.


This is good information. I turned the thermostat up in the darkroom.

ic-racer
20-Nov-2012, 16:59
What I did was take four sheets of identically exposed negatives, now I want to develop them one at a time, make the best possible print, make corrections in the development of the negative and make another print and hope I get it right before I run out of negatives.

You might try multigrade paper. It can save you some trouble.

premortho
20-Nov-2012, 18:42
Although I have been a roll film photographer for over 35 years, I have finally set up a darkroom for large format and am making my first experiments to refine my process. I have made my first prints using tentative materials, and the results are putrid!

What I did was take four sheets of identically exposed negatives, now I want to develop them one at a time, make the best possible print, make corrections in the development of the negative and make another print and hope I get it right before I run out of negatives. Never heard of anyone doing it this way, but I am because I don't think I should need a step wedge and a densitometer to get good pictures.

I am trying to use the incident system described in "Beyond the Zone System" and my enlarger has a non variable contrast cold light so I am hoping to be able to make good negatives that print consistently on grade 2 paper.

I tried hp5 at box speed exactly once, talked to some other people then exposed at 200, and gave normal developement for me, which is 1+50 Rodinal-water, 65 degrees. Years later, I found on an Ilford site that the ISO speed was the minimum to get a print, and that photographers might like 200-250 speed better. Well, they were right, at least for me. I suggest you try HP5 at 200, and develope for the normal time for your developer. The lighting was very flat, an overcast day. Using a incident light meter there shade was EV 13 and full light was EV14. I exposed the frames on HP5 at ASA 500 using the shaded reading at f22 1/8 sec.

My first negative was developed in DK-50 in a Patterson orbital at 62 degrees (cold!) for 5:20. The negative appeared very dense to me, and required twice the exposure at the enlarger to get a decent but weak black. The shadow detail is great, but the highlights are muddy without good separation of tones. The print lacks punch. Yuck!

Now...here is my real question. Should I give the next negative more development to add contrast? This would be my instinct, but the density of the negative tells me to go with less development.

premortho
20-Nov-2012, 18:50
I don't know what happened to my comment, but here goes: I only tried HP5 at box speed once. Dull, lacking contrast and poor shadow detail. I tried to sell the rest of the box to a buddy of mine, but he asked me what speed I shot it at. When I told him he laughed and said I should try another shot, but to expose it at 200. I did and it transformed the film. I found out later that Ilford suggested that photographers might want to expose it at 200-250, as the ISO tests rated the film for a very minimal exposure.

chuck94022
21-Nov-2012, 01:16
Frankly it all seems like too many variables. shooting a relatively new film for you (HP5) at ISO 500, developing at 62 degrees, and using a new (for you) exposure process.

I'd agree with others that you should start from as close to a known starting point as you can, or at least at as predictable a starting point as you can.

Suggest you start with the same film type you are familiar with as a roll film photographer if you can. If you were developing your own roll film, start there. If not, at least start with a film you know.

Try to get a normal exposure, in "normal" lighting (eg, 4 EV separation between shadow and highlight). Don't start on a flat or high contrast day. Get your normal defined. Start with box rated ISO if you don't have experience with the film.

Develop with something most films like, like D-76. So what if you waste some developer, this is just your starting point. You can move to HC-110 or Rodinal if keeping properties are your first consideration, but your immediate priority should be stabilizing your process. Develop using recommended temperatures, and stay in the range (control the environment so temps don't drift).

When those negatives are looking good, then change one variable at a time. Try N+ or N- development, based on the exposure, but don't change your developer type or your temps. Once you've got the exposure compensation understood, then you can vary something else - try a different developer, or shoot at different speeds. But avoid doing multiple changes at once, you won't know which change is creating problems.

Ironage
21-Nov-2012, 05:55
Sorry for the confusion but the only thing new right now is the printing process. I've been making contact prints and alternative process prints with this film and camera for some time now.
Shooting at 400 ASA and developing in DK50 has been working for me.

So the Developer is not too new, but using graded paper and this particular enlarger is. Also trying to control contrast with development is.

Bill Burk
21-Nov-2012, 08:33
I think you are on-track...

I like your thinking. By bringing up the temperature... And backing down the time even less than the calculated time... I think you adjusted both for temperature and you anticipated the impact of greater Hydroquinone activity. I don't think the time-temperature scale took the different "temperature coefficients" of the developer components into consideration.

It would be nicer if you had a longer development time... just for uniform development's sake. Maybe you will find you need to increase the time anyway for this shot.

Doremus Scudder
21-Nov-2012, 10:00
If you need more contrast, you need to increase development time, not decrease it! The fact that you have a dense negative with low contrast points to overexposure, not overdevelopment.

Strictly speaking, you are putting the cart before the horse a bit by not finding a a personal film speed (E.I.) before you go tweaking development times for contrast. If your shadow detail is alright, then you are likely close. Erring on the side of overexposure is okay for a bit, but too much overexposure will yield dense negs with highlights that have less separation due to being pushed up onto the shoulder of the film curve.

I'm sure you also realize that finding a development time for a negative shot on an overcast day and a subject with low-contrast lighting will only give you the proper development time for similar subjects in similar lighting.

Save yourself some time by establishing a personal E.I. first. If you want to cut corners, then shoot at 2/3 stop slower than box speed as a starting point. That will get you in the ball park. If your shadow detail is not adequate, give more exposure, if your negatives are too dense, shadow detail is excessive and highlights start to block when you approach proper contrast, then give less exposure. Modern film has quite a lot of latitude, but you need to get the exposure between the goalposts of shadow detail and highlight shouldering at least. The negative you describe seems overexposed and underdeveloped.

Next, if you wish to use incident metering, do use it to find the overall contrast of the lighting ratio, and base your development time changes on that. You will need more development in scenes with less contrasty lighting and vice-versa.

I, too, believe that it is not necessary to have a densitometer or step wedges to dial in your system. So did Minor White and Richard Zakia. Look for a copy of "The New Zone System Manual" to find a description of how to calibrate your system using only your meter and the film and paper you usually print on.

And, for crying out loud, get rid of all the extraneous variables you can when you are trying to test something. Get your developer to temp, use a standard exposure, etc., etc.

Best,

Doremus

Ironage
1-Dec-2012, 14:24
OK, I printed the new negative and it looked only slightly better. Then I got smart and made my standard contact print. Yup, the picture was definitely over exposed.

I decided to try another picture on a good sunny day. Anyways, thanks guys. I will look into the suggested books.

Robert Budding
1-Dec-2012, 15:11
I'd suggest that you pay $50 and have the View Camera Store run your tests. Fred will expose 5 sheets of film for you. You develop each sheet at different times and send them back to him. He'll measure the densities and deliver the info back to you.

http://www.viewcamerastore.com/servlet/the-34/BTZS-Film-Test-4x5/Detail

Ironage
1-Dec-2012, 19:51
I'd suggest that you pay $50 and have the View Camera Store run your tests. Fred will expose 5 sheets of film for you. You develop each sheet at different times and send them back to him. He'll measure the densities and deliver the info back to you.

http://www.viewcamerastore.com/servlet/the-34/BTZS-Film-Test-4x5/Detail

Interesting service. I may have to try this.

cosmicexplosion
3-Dec-2012, 01:34
Looks like you got all the answers namely get a solid neg
Contact print and then do one variation at a time
Or in your way of thinking expose ten sheets at different intervals then try one variable for each neg

You could end up doing hundreds of negs

Or read what others have done then base
Your work on that

Throw away your incident Meter and use
A one degree spot meter if you want to control contrast from exposure

Me

I use spot meter and orange filters when contact printing
Gives me all the contrast I could care for

I am pretty sure unless you use colored gels
To print with your negs will be grey and washed out

I am still learning but I was getting woeful results
Till I used spot and gels

Now I am getting good results

I am happy

premortho
4-Dec-2012, 11:30
I tried, but I couldn't let this quote just sit there. I got great results from 1947 on by controling contrast through development. About 1955, I bought a used Weston Master ll reflected light meter. I bought it because that was what A. Adams developed the zone system around. Previously I either used the lens for an extinction meter, or sunny 11. Sunny 16 gives the minumum exposure for an acceptable print. Sunny sixteen came along later, after the standard was changed in 1960 which reduced exposure by 50%. And by that I mean a films' box speed was doubled overnight in 1960. This does'nt matter, as long as you understand why you are not getting adequite contrast. Another way of saying this is, if you shoot at box speed and a light meter value, you are only about one step or more away from underexposure. Now I don't know who's work you admire...for me it's Edward Weston, and a bunch of earlier photographers who never used a light meter. How could they get those beautiful pictures, beside artistic ability? That's where the old axiom 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' comes from.
Looks like you got all the answers namely get a solid neg
Contact print and then do one variation at a time
Or in your way of thinking expose ten sheets at different intervals then try one variable for each neg

You could end up doing hundreds of negs

Or read what others have done then base
Your work on that

Throw away your incident Meter and use
A one degree spot meter if you want to control contrast from exposure

Me

I use spot meter and orange filters when contact printing
Gives me all the contrast I could care for

I am pretty sure unless you use colored gels
To print with your negs will be grey and washed out

I am still learning but I was getting woeful results
Till I used spot and gels

Now I am getting good results

I am happy

Ironage
4-Dec-2012, 14:23
So you got the solution or what Ironage ??

Last weekend I contact printed all 5x7 negatives on grade 2 paper. They were all exposed for the same 13 seconds under my enlarger. It amounted to only 20 negatives shot over about 7 years on different films and developed with several different developers. They looked pretty good, but there were many more than this were dumped over the years.

They were all exposed at the recommended ASA and the recommended development time and temp.

Those which were shot under contrasty lighting look contrasty but natural. Those shot in soft lighting look natural as well, but of course lower contrast. I am not sure how necessary contrast control will be for my poor eyes trained to judge lighting before I even decide to take the picture. Roll film necessitates this skill.

premortho
5-Dec-2012, 13:55
Ironage, if you are getting good printable negs with whatever you are doing, why change? I'm a little surprised you get good neg quality at box speed, I don't, but if you do, more power to you. Light meters were a rarity when I started photography in 1947, I bought my first light meter in 1955, so I understand what you mean about your eyes judging lighting before you even decide to expose a film. What I don't like about roll film is that all the exposures have to be the same...and it takes so many pictorial oppertunities to finish a roll. That's why I prefer sheet film. Rarely do I ever expose 2 shots on any one photo excursion. If I do see another picture (pre-visualization is useful for me), I'll expose maybe another two. I develop the films at night, either at home, or in my pickup camper. The pick-up camper saves a lot of driving around.
Last weekend I contact printed all 5x7 negatives on grade 2 paper. They were all exposed for the same 13 seconds under my enlarger. It amounted to only 20 negatives shot over about 7 years on different films and developed with several different developers. They looked pretty good, but there were many more than this were dumped over the years.

They were all exposed at the recommended ASA and the recommended development time and temp.

Those which were shot under contrasty lighting look contrasty but natural. Those shot in soft lighting look natural as well, but of course lower contrast. I am not sure how necessary contrast control will be for my poor eyes trained to judge lighting before I even decide to take the picture. Roll film necessitates this skill.

cosmicexplosion
6-Dec-2012, 21:30
Sorry meant to say magenta filter in printing not orange