Bessa I Skopar Acros 100

I love this but, somehow, wanted a bit more openness in the shadows. Maybe I am wrong, but that is my first impression. - David Lyga

Good point David. The shadows have detail in the negative. Perhaps I went a little too far in the contrast. I will try re processing it and see how it looks.

Great tree.

@David Lyga

Could you elaborate on what you mean by openness? Thanks!

@Corey Fehr Correct me if I'm wrong David, What I think he means by opening up the shadows means brighter with more visible detail. in this case that would be achieved under the enlarger by adjusting time and/or contrast filters. Darwinc posted another take on this take a look at the differences.

@Larry the sailor I saw that. Thanks for clarifying.

In other words, perhaps if one gives a bit MORE exposure the shadows become more embedded and can then be better recorded. Of course, all of this would come to nought if you over-develop that negative, because, then, the paper would be able to record only a restricted range of tonality ... far less than the negative could.

Now darinwc states that there IS detail in the shadows, but, as I just said, that comes to nought because of the excess negative contrast which prevents the paper from capturing all the tonal range. - David Lyga

@Larry the sailor

Yes, 'opening' the shadows means allowing more light on those shadows. And that becomes possible only if the shadow detail is recorded on the negative OR if, already recorded, is ALLOWED to manifest within the paper's more restricted tonal range.

Unlike with transparencies, which are viewed not by reflected light, (as in prints), the range becomes far greater than in paper prints because the light passes through the transparency in order to be projected onto a screen. - David Lyga