Reciprocity, Contrast & Adjacency

[Annie M.]

I often photograph B&W in conditions of extreme low light... usually my local briny portals to the underworld... sea caves... the realm of reciprocity. I know my prints of this subject are lacking something and I believe it is to do with tonal separation and distribution. I think that my negatives are being skewed by reciprocity. So I am wondering that during exposure when reciprocity increases the contrast of the negative is it doing so in a uniform manner from shadows to highlights?

Also, it is my usual procedure when dealing with reciprocity to develop my negatives to compensate slightly for the increased contrast.... This usually consists of stand development in 2 separate developer dilutions ...I like to boost the concentration with agitation for the first minute or so to give the shadows and opportunity to present themselves (at least I hope that is what is happening). I also assume that I am gaining some adjacency effect from the stand development (does the adjacency effect favour specific areas of the tonal scale?) Is my method totally off the mark for the situation?

I believe my final prints are begging for more mid-tone separation and I am wondering where to begin to modify them while still supporting vigorous shadows (let the highlights fall where they like... they are routinely specular). Are there papers that are more enthusiastic about the mid-tones? Presently I am using Museum Classic (graded) and Agfa Classic. Should I be using a different film developer combinations of TriX/HC110 J&C200/A49? Any thoughts or suggestions on cranking open the mid-tones would be sincerely appreciated.

Cheers Annie

[paulr]

Hi Annie, I don't know for sure what you're seeing, so I'll just throw out some thoughts ...

Of the films you could be using, the ones that would likely give the most ajacency effects are the older, traditional emulsion films. But the ones that would have the best reciprocity characteristics (and the highest effective speed because of this) are modern emulsions (t-max, etc.) This may just be a tradeoff that you're faced with, unless someone else can offer a specific film suggestion.

The stand development you're using (which gives lots of compensation, to keep your highlights from blocking up) works its magic at the expense of midtone separation. Basically, you're expanding the scale in the shadows and lower mids, and compressing it in the upper mids and highlights. Adjusting the internal shape of the scale is tricky, and it can be hard to tell exactly what you're looking at. I'm assuming that spending weekends with test wedges and a densitometer is NOT your idea of a good time.

My first reaction would be to try a film that does significantly better in low light, and then try to develop with a less radical kind of compensation than stand development. A more standard compensating developer at a weaker than normal dilution would be a good place to start.

It's possible to get very beautiful results from t-max, although I find that standard developer formulas (including t-max developer) don't really do it justice. I have some thoughts on how to get a nice compensating scale from t-max, if you're interested, but you'll proably have the time working with materials you're familiar with.

[John Cook]

Having spent most of my life in a commercial advertising studio, reciprocity characteristics are obviously not my forte. However, I do have one or two general suggestions.

You seem to be mixing materials from several different manufacturers and indulging in some unusual, possibly unproven, processing techniques. This creates too many variables to easily solve your problem.

If it were me, I’d return to conventional middle-of-the-road materials and techniques. And I’d stick with one manufacturer so that I could legitimately bug them for advice. For me personally, that would be something like HP5 Plus developed in ID-11, printed on Multigrade or Galerie paper developed in Bromophen. I would download the pertinent technical pdf files from the Ilford website and follow their instructions to the letter. Then I would begin driving their David Carper nuts with questions.

Or you can listen to us, giving you all sorts of artistic advice. For example, my favorite technique for this kind of photography is to gargle prune juice and spit on the lens just after making the exposure ;0)

[Annie M.]

Looks like my dirty little secret is out.....it is true I lack disciple with my process... making the long exposures for what 'seems' about a minute (I don't own a watch), and indeed I do not get particularly upset if I forget my lightmeter, I just put my finger to the air and use apparent wind speed (results so far seem about the same), if printing is not going well I just slop a little straight Dektol into the mix no matter what developer I started with & I like stand development because I can go and walk the beach while the film develops itself... and if on quick inspection it is not quite right well what the heck, I slop a little drop of Dektol in there too.... And I may as well confess also that I have used pretty well everything that will transmit light as a lens... Including one I carved from ice.

However, I now think I am crossing a threshold .... My work is beginning to sell (really sell not the usual situation where a dinner guest has a bit too much wine during the main course, grabs a print off the dining room wall and tries to stuff an exorbitantly inappropriate amount of cash under the dessert plate) and I have finally begun to really 'see' my prints and I know they can be so much more luminous than they are.

It seems possible that I may be working against myself with the procedures I have been using... but I wish to improve.... perhaps my question should have been what film/developer combination will best support the mid-tones when reciprocity is a consideration. I would certainly be interested in Paul's thoughts on a strategy to get a nice compensating scale from T-max... And I have no problem with going back to basics if that will take me where I need to go.

Thanks, Annie

[John Cook]

Over the last forty years I have, like many of us, spent (wasted) untold thousands of dollars and thousands of hours searching for that magic, secret film and developer combination which will make my prints just sing and glow right off the wall. I have never found it. Now I see the new kids enthusiastically carrying on the tradition.

And yet, I have viewed many hundred-year-old prints made with crummy lenses and crummy film souped in crummy developer which look infinitely better than mine.

You wouldn’t suppose it’s something to do with the technique, not the materials?

[paulr]

I think we're all trying to answer this without knowing what your negs look like or what you want them to look like, so we're pretty much guessing. Before suggesting even more formulas and combinations to throw into the mix, I'll ask this ... are you able to get results that you like when shooting in more normal situations? With some level of consistency? I'm asking just because it's hard to work with too many variables or new tricks at a time and expect to get anywhere.

It's great that you photograph more like a chef than like a propellerhead. Keeps life interesting. There are some areas, though, where a chef needs to button up the technique and do things systematically ... pastries come to mind. When you're trying to fix issues like reciprocity departure and the internal shape of your film's scale, it might be a time to take a deep breath and get more systematic with your approach. It can feel like a drag when what you really want to be thinking about is your work, but in the end it can save a lot of time and grief.

Anyway, if you're open to mixing your own developer solution, I can give you a formulat that has worked for beautifully for me with T-max for a wide range of contrast situations. If not, I'd suggest liquid concentrate developers that lend themselves to high dilution, like rodinal (friends have had amazing results with this) or maybe even HC110.

Another resource is Bud at Photographer's Formulary (photoformulary.com). He often has good tips.

[Ben Calwell]

Annie, you sound like my kind of photographer. I can't speak with the same "tested to the 'enth degree" precision that some of the other more learned posters can, but in my experience, for really long exposures of a minute or more, I've used HC110 diluted 1:31 (from the stock, not the syrup) and given my Tri-X 4x5 about 20 minutes with agitation every three to four minutes (ala Ansel Adams in his book The Negative). I use this development scheme when I desire great shadow detail in a scene in which there are also important high values that would blow out with "normal" development. I've also learned through trial and error that even if exposures are really long, if the scene brightness range is really quiet and low, you can develop with a full strength developer and maybe cut back just a minute or two. As an example, I once photographed a landscape that was illuminated just with the light of the Western sky after sunset. As I recall, the exposure was in excess of several seconds, but the SBR was pretty low, as I recall. In spite of the long exposure, I used my HC110 full strength and just cut back on the time a little. It gave the negs the added punch they needed in that subdued light. You mentioned that your highlights are specular, so there's no point in trying to reign them in with stand development. Even if your exposures are long, you might get the better mid-tone separation if you try a more "normal" development procedure. It could be worth a try just to see.

[Ole Tjugen]

My "Standard Magic Bullet" is traditional film (APX100 - still have a few boxes left, EFKE PL100, Ilford FP4), developed in half-strength FX-2. I use a JOBO25something, and let it sit for up tp an hour: Presoak 2min, one minute with agitation, sit for 20 minutes, 30 sec agitation, then leave it until it's done.

So far this has given me good compensation without flattening the midtones.

Another way is to use a compensating developer like Windisch' Pyrocatechin or Maxim Muir's "modernised" version. I use that for extreme contrast range - one case was a partial solar eclipse. I got detail in the foreground as well as visible sunspots!

[Annie M.]

Paul... My negs are quite consistent and all the information seems to be there.... no gaping holes in the shadows and no major pileups in the highlights. My prints do not scream 'genius' and the curators of the MOMA are not breaking down the door....but the prints are interesting ($500 worth of interesting to some) and I have progressed beyond mud in the middle tones. At this time I am struggling with the particular problem of reciprocity and midtones... I just do not have the experience (I have been photographing for less than 2 years, learning on my own) to know how to augment the process to maximize the middle. I have a cupboard full of the usual chemistry in the darkroom so I am sure I can mix up most formulas (except Pyro).

Thanks for the other suggestions..... I will expose a stack of negatives and test your development ideas... It would be wonderful if I could push this particular subject into something sublime. Thanks again for taking time to assist me.

Annie

...... You know I am thinking it might be time to take my stuff to a workshop and get some input.

[Donald Miller]

Hi Annie,

My thoughts on your situation are these. The effects of the lengthy exposures one encounters in low light situations is favoring an increased density to the hightlights. This builds contrast. Typically in low light situations one would increase exposure to support low values and then compensate by reduced development. The reduced development will affect the negative high density regions first.

What I am thinking that you are experiencing is a reduction in local contrast when you are attempting to bring overall contrast into the realm of the paper's exposure scale. This is nothing new. In an attempt to achieve the elusive "glow" in our prints we are continually struggling with achieving desireable local contrast while attempting to hold overall contrast.

There are several ways to accomplish this. The first is by pre-flashing the paper. This will compress highlight values downward...allowing a higher paper grade or filtration and hence increased local contrast.

The second way is sharp shadow masking of the negative. This compresses shadow tones upward and once again leads to the ability to use higher contrast printing materials. Hence increased local contrast.

The third method is to unsharp mask the negative at the printing stage. This collapses the overall contrast of the negative and once again allows for the use of higher contrast printing materials. This method will also provide increased apparent sharpness akin to the adjacency effects that you enquired into.

My thoughts are that normal human visual acuity is more discerning of proper highlight separation then of proper shadow separation. This leads me to favor shadow or unsharp masking at the printing level.

As others have indicated, the adjacency effects that I have experienced with minimal agitation procedures have been most pronounced with old emulsion films. In my experience Efke PL 100 in combination with Pyrocat HD 1-1-150 is incredible in this regard.

Good luck, Donald Miller