Hybrid b&w workflow - still N+/- Process?

[marschp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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