I don't like slide film for scanning

[interneg]

YK 'exposing into the toe' is supported by the facts. Churchill's portrait is only an example.

I think there's been a miscommunication somewhere along the line here - yes Karsh's negatives appear 'thin', but that's because the highlights are not overdeveloped but the shadows are well exposed - to quote Popular Photography's extremely in-depth May 1945 article on Karsh (findable on Google books) p.59, talking about how he controlled the contrast caused by his use of powerful fresnel spots "By the common practice of full exposure for the shadow areas and underdevelopment, working for thin negatives of about the density one seeks in small film." Not difficult to do - it's essentially how I expose & process LF film & it can often give a negative with a good range of interpretation depending on grade & printing choice - print softer & tonally, or boost the shadows with 4.5 & flash in the highlights (makes for wonderfully 'sharp' prints). Pretty much any film can be made to behave with this methodology. Straightforward to do, might take 2-3 sheets to zero in at worst - and any excuse to play around with fresnels & similar stuff is good!

[Pere Casals]

yes Karsh's negatives appear 'thin', but that's because the highlights are not overdeveloped but the shadows are well exposed

Sure... I think this is right. Of course he exposed shadows perfectly. But he also exposed well deep shadows compressed in the toe.

IMHO with graded paper we have a lack of control compared with VC paper. With VC paper we may work the mids and then burning highlights or shadows with the grade we want. We cannot do that with graded paper as we have only one grade in the printing process.

With graded paper, after taking a grade for the mids, be can burn shadows or highlights to adjust density but we won't be able to control local contrast by burning with an arbitrary grade.

With graded paper a printer has to pick a grade for the mids, and then he finds that the paper shoulder/toe imposes a look. The photographer then requires an additional degree of freedom that it has to be nailed during film exposure, taking advantage of film's toe/shoulder, IMHO this requires a refined crafting.


Since c. 1980 VC popularized, allowing an additional degree of control in the printing, then some (Sexton) thought that toe/shoulder were not necessary anymore, and linear TMax was born.

But Sexton was shooting landscapes and objects. Many portrait photograpers (studio) still relied in TXP, sporting a toe and a shoulder, and (depending on development) some bump in the mids.

Well, this is my interpretation... take it as an opinion because I'm still a rookie printer wanting to learn.

[interneg]

Sure... I think this is right. Of course he exposed shadows perfectly. But he also exposed well deep shadows compressed in the toe.

IMHO with graded paper we have a lack of control compared with VC paper. With VC paper we may work the mids and then burning highlights or shadows with the grade we want. We cannot do that with graded paper as we have only one grade in the printing process.

With graded paper, after taking a grade for the mids, be can burn shadows or highlights to adjust density but we won't be able to control local contrast by burning with an arbitrary grade.

With graded paper a printer has to pick a grade for the mids, and then he finds that the paper shoulder/toe imposes a look. The photographer then requires an additional degree of freedom that it has to be nailed during film exposure, taking advantage of film's toe/shoulder, IMHO this requires a refined crafting.


Since c. 1980 VC popularized, allowing an additional degree of control in the printing, then some (Sexton) thought that toe/shoulder were not necessary anymore, and linear TMax was born.

But Sexton was shooting landscapes and objects. Many portrait photograpers (studio) still relied in TXP, sporting a toe and a shoulder, and (depending on development) some bump in the mids.

Well, this is my interpretation... take it as an opinion because I'm still a rookie printer wanting to learn.

Here's Kodak's set of curves for Super-XX: https://archive.org/details/kodak-films/page/n57 - there were plenty of films that had tone curve similarities to the Tmax films, just that the Tmax's were meant to offer the abilities of several different films in one box. You might also want to check out TXP's (and/ or TXT's) curve at normal CI's vis-a-vis the boosted CI you might use with some lighting conditions - it doesn't really shoulder at a 'normal' CI. Finally, I think Karsh may well have used Portrait Pan for at least some of his more 'ortho'-ish portraits - it was 2/3 stop slower under tungsten vs most panchro films only being 1/3 & ortho a full stop & a comparison with Paul Strand's work of the same era (he pretty much solely used Portrait Pan) shows a similarity in the rendering of certain skintones.

Fixed grade & VC papers are both more flexible than conventional wisdom would assert - before we even get to masking, you can use pre & post flashes, & some other basic techniques (developers, ferricyanide) to add a few grades of flexibility. Essentially, some fixed grade emulsions can offer better separation in certain tonalities, but VC may offer a better overall 'look'. Depends on final aesthetic really as to which is 'better'. Don't forget that VC papers are essentially a multi-speed G5 paper & can be manipulated accordingly for maximum perceived sharpness. Really a question of learning enough hands-on (and avoiding printing to a densitometer as far as possible!) to see how specific paper tone curves behave, & that the best print usually results from defeating reflective metering systems' desire to turn everything 18%-ish grey. Bumping the shadows harder than 'correct' can drastically improve things, even if it may mean more dodge & burn etc.

Main other thing with VC papers is watching out for certain transitions between the emulsions which can be a little odd tonally (almost posterised) - ie if you have a significant burn at 00, a dodged & burnt post-flash may be better.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

That is an interesting set of curves

[Pere Casals]

before we even get to masking, you can use pre & post flashes, & some other basic techniques (developers, ferricyanide) to add a few grades of flexibility.

First, thanks for posting that link, I've saved it.

Of course there are many darkroom techniques, but it's clear that taking advantage of film toe/shoulder in the crafting is (or was) a popular choice.

As you know toe/shoulder of a film is by design, this is obtained by adjusting grain formulation, and this is done by controlling silver nitrate addition flows, digestion, and by mixing different emulsions of different nature. ...to cite only the resources a dry plate amateur like me may use.

If a film manufacturer designs a toe and a shoulder this is to allow photographers to use it, and many films have a sound sensitometric design to make easier to obtain a certain footprint in the tonality.

Today bending curves is easy in the hybrid... but in a full optical process we have a (by design) toe/shoulder for the case we want to use it. YK was using it, certainly, alongside with many other resources I don't fully understand.


But, (in the pre-photoshop era) why not nailing the shot in the studio by controlling illumination/exposure vs toe/shoulder ? avoiding complications in the darkroom...

Just a thought, if YK was developing his negatives but not (as often) printing, as he had many sittings, then perhaps it would be better nailing an straight negative than one that had to be interpreted too much by a printer.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The way I see it is to nail the exposure regardless of technique after exposure. Ie, the more right it is at moment of capture, the less work to do post-processing, whether full optical or hybrid.

[Pere Casals]

to nail the exposure

Well, anyway we have choices... I guess that we can meter for a more flexible negative or for a more straight negative.

If hybrid is in the midle then perhaps we may prefer a flexible negative, placing all what we can in the linear section. If we plan to print in the darkroom then we may want an easy to print negative, not sporting high densities and perhaps with some compressions already done in the film, to lower the dodging/burning potential workload.

[jnantz]

it appears your guru gave you his mantra, his answer, not yours.

Permit me to suggest you get back to first position. Re-lace your boots. Spend time doing your own pushups.

Take from this a community lesson — not everyone is a trail runner; most just buy the shoes.

yes !

[interneg]

If a film manufacturer designs a toe and a shoulder this is to allow photographers to use it, and many films have a sound sensitometric design to make easier to obtain a certain footprint in the tonality.


But, (in the pre-photoshop era) why not nailing the shot in the studio by controlling illumination/exposure vs toe/shoulder ? avoiding complications in the darkroom...

Just a thought, if YK was developing his negatives but not (as often) printing, as he had many sittings, then perhaps it would be better nailing an straight negative than one that had to be interpreted too much by a printer.

The methods that have been described for Karsh's printing techniques are pretty standard for the day (even down to the use of strong, hot developer dabbed on for local contrast enhancement - which might seem alien to today's audiences) & his choice of films seems to have been dictated by his use of high contrast lighting - ie no shouldering & a softer toe to open up shadows. A shorter toe & a shoulder would give a punchier result in softer lighting conditions. Those are however very broad generalisations & the characteristics of many films was dictated by their broader uses - Super-XX's characteristics were as much aimed at its use for colour separation & three strip Technicolor as anything else. The other big change seems to have been a realisation that the straighter-line films offered better behaviour in a broader array of light than the ones with a toe & shoulder (remember, we're talking half a century of imaging science here!). If you've ever had to burn in highlights on TX & TMY-II on a regular basis, TMY-II is far preferable because of its linearity. This is before we get on to the specific aesthetics of films & societal perceptions thereof.

Finally, a good printer very rapidly learns how to print as the client wants - & often can do a better job faster. You wouldn't expect an orchestral composer to play all the instruments to concert standard...

[jnantz]

Just a thought, if YK was developing his negatives but not (as often) printing, as he had many sittings, then perhaps it would be better nailing an straight negative than one that had to be interpreted too much by a printer.

any portrait / professional photographer nails the exposure, that is what they are paid to do LOL
it was a formula hair, key, background fill lights and the camera ...
he trained with the master ( garo ) and he knew his $h!+
BUT ... the lynchpin in the whole operation wasn't the printer
or the camera person or the developing person but the retoucher..
its not easy to retouch film with lead so it is invisible to the eye on the print
any 12 year old could have processed his film after being shown how to do it..
==
interneg,
..the hot dip sounds like fun!