Using film development to control contrast

[Ironage]

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]

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.

[Ari]

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]

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]

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

[E. von Hoegh]

Ansel Adams, "The Negative".

[Bill Burk]

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]

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]

Ansel Adams, "The Negative".

Yup, that book would be better.

[Ironage]

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!