400 and 1600 on the same roll

[Ariston]

This post either belongs here, or it may belong in the scanning section, I don't know.

I had never used Ultrafine Xtreme 400 before. I bought a bulk roll and tested development methods, and settled on 1+49 at seven minutes (HC110). While doing some controlled shots (shooting at 400, then one and two stops over and under), I noticed that on some of the shots, I preferred the scans from the -2 shots, even though the negatives looked pretty thin. I hypothesized that maybe scanners (mine is an Epson) handle thin negatives better.

So I went outside in less controlled conditions and shot several scenes with the Ultrafine at 400 and 1600 on the same roll. I developed the roll at what I prefer for 400 (see above), and still got entirely usable results. For my uses, I now know I can shoot at 400 or 1600 on the same roll, develop it the way I am , and get usable results for all shots.

The 1600 shots are more contrasty, and the 400 shots have more shadow detail, of course. See below. The first is at 400 and the second is at 1600:

 

[Vaughn]

Under-exposing by two stops (iso 1600) is not too bad with the latitude of B&W film -- especially being able to pull out a lot of detail via scanning. Glad it is working for you.

 

[MattKing]

I think, as well, that there is a possibility that the highlights in the example metered at 400 are actually over-exposed, while those highlights are closer to being properly exposed in the example metered at 1600.
This scene appears to have a wide SBR. How did you approach metering it?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Just don't do it where ISO1600 needs to be for real, to compensate low light. Or develop it as 1600, not just your way.
I did the same years ago as you did under normal light, it was common exercise at forums, back then. But it was Polypan F. I went all way up to 1600 under dalily light.
It was ISO 50, dirt cheap film .

Polypan F 50 @800.

 

[koraks]

I hypothesized that maybe scanners (mine is an Epson) handle thin negatives better.

Yes. But it's a bit (entirely) out of scope of this subforum. But indeed, scanners can eek out detail from very thin areas that are just about unprintable under an enlarger, while very dense areas can generally be printed optically, but do not necessarily scan well (or at all). The example image @1600 indeed shows quite poor shadow detail. If it works for you, then that's great.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ko.Fe. is this a scan of a print without any alterations or at least a scan of a negative that could be printed under an enlarger OK? If so that is 4 stops underexposed '800 which shows an amazing latitude

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[OGTrout]

Yes. But it's a bit (entirely) out of scope of this subforum. But indeed, scanners can eek out detail from very thin areas that are just about unprintable under an enlarger, while very dense areas can generally be printed optically, but do not necessarily scan well (or at all). The example image @1600 indeed shows quite poor shadow detail. If it works for you, then that's great.

My two pence; this is something I've concluded with a lot of pushing recipes I've tried to follow online, most of the recipes seem to be from those who are scanning their film.
I can get a decent "scan" using a light table and my mobile phone camera from a very thin neg, but printing is a pain. I've given up on it for the time being. if I need the extra speed I'll normally try to keep a fast film about. The scene is important as well, pushing to 1600 in daylight normally yields a printable neg, but if I'm in daylight I probably didn't need 1600.

 

[koraks]

It is also a latitude that I have not seen at all with that particular film. EI25 on a good day, 50 is already a stretch. (This was re: polypan f @ 1600)

 

[Ariston]

My two pence; this is something I've concluded with a lot of pushing recipes I've tried to follow online, most of the recipes seem to be from those who are scanning their film.
I can get a decent "scan" using a light table and my mobile phone camera from a very thin neg, but printing is a pain. I've given up on it for the time being. if I need the extra speed I'll normally try to keep a fast film about. The scene is important as well, pushing to 1600 in daylight normally yields a printable neg, but if I'm in daylight I probably didn't need 1600.

I think you must be right. Off the topic of this subforum (this may need to be moved) - but my scanner adds artifacts for denser negatives (even ones that don't look that dense to my eyes), so it seems to prefer thinner negatives.

I need to find the negative I did three stops over and under on. It was indoors, and the thin negatives seemed to scan better. I wish I could use an enlarger, but no room.

 

[Ariston]

Under-exposing by two stops (iso 1600) is not too bad with the latitude of B&W film -- especially being able to pull out a lot of detail via scanning. Glad it is working for you.

You are right, and I am learning every day. I knew film had a lot of latitude for overexposing (I always overexpose c41), but I did not know two stops under could give usable results when developed normally. I'm guessing b&w is better at this.

 

[pentaxuser]

If printing in a darkroom, it would seem that 400 and 1600 on the same film may not be a circle that can be squared very well compared to scanning but should the shooting requirement part way through the film unexpectedly require 1600 then is there a consensus on how best to develop?

My take on this is that as optical printing is apparently easier with "thick" negatives then on balance it might be sensible to develop the whole film for 1600. That way you get properly developed frames @ 1600 and thick but printable negs at 400?

Does this make sense and has anyone who still optically prints, has any success with this approach. Some examples of prints would be great.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

...Does this make sense and has anyone who still optically prints, has any success with this approach. Some examples of prints would be great. Thanks pentaxuser

In theory, it could work on images when the shadows remain very small in area on the print and the loss of shadow detail is not significant to the over-all image..

 

[koraks]

My take on this is that as optical printing is apparently easier with "thick" negatives then on balance it might be sensible to develop the whole film for 1600. That way you get properly developed frames @ 1600 and thick but printable negs at 400?

Does this make sense and has anyone who still optically prints, has any success with this approach. Some examples of prints would be great.

Sort of. We'd have to get some terms straight, though. Overdevelopment (as you'd do in a 'push' scenario) does not so much create 'thick' negatives, but very contrasty ones. A thick negative I would characterize as a negative with overall a lot of density, but not necessarily a lot of contrast. When exposing 400 film at 400-1600 and then developing everything longer to suit the 1600 exposures, the 400-exposed negatives will have ample shadow detail and they will have a lot of contrast - i.e. they will be both thick and contrasty. If that's still printable under an enlarger really depends, but usually you can get away with it, even if it's not optimal. Grain will be emphasized both due to overdevelopment and due to the high overall density on the 400-negatives. That may or may not be a problem. Depending on the scenes, the negatives may be so contrasty that you need a grade 1 or even grade 0 filter. In my experience, that rarely yields the most pleasing results, but you do get a picture and full tonal scale. It's a bit of a compromise, but it'll work as a last resort.

 

[Ariston]

I don't know if it applies to modern emulsions, but Adams said that you over-expose and underdevelop to get shadow detail in the shot while preserving highlights in the development. He said that the opposite doesn't work as well because the shadow detail can't really be recovered well in development - which makes sense. You are talking about underexposing and overdeveloping, which seems like it would preserve highlights well, but lose shadows. I've never printed optically, so I am just regurgitating what I've read.

 

[Ariston]

I think, as well, that there is a possibility that the highlights in the example metered at 400 are actually over-exposed, while those highlights are closer to being properly exposed in the example metered at 1600.
This scene appears to have a wide SBR. How did you approach metering it?

Sunny 16 - I wasn't trying to preserve details in the shadows or highlights. It was just a test shoot for the fun of my experiment.

For what it's worth, I just let the scanner do it's thing. I could have recovered more in the shadows and/or highlights if I took a little time. I would have probably been able to recover less shadow, though.

 

[MattKing]

You need to think carefully when you are evaluating a scene for shadow detail and highlight detail.
In your example, there are parts of the scene that aren't getting any real light - no direct light from the sun, and no reflected light from anything else. Those are not the shadows that you should be evaluating for shadow detail.
In addition, there may be highlight areas in the scene that are essentially featureless specular highlights. Those are not the highlights that you should be evaluating for highlight detail.
You adjust your exposure and your development to achieve fully detailed shadows where there is both important detail in those shadows, and sufficient light to reveal them. The result should be dark but not empty.
A similar approach needs to be taken with highlights - bright and detailed and textured, not brilliant reflections.
I think your software's scanning presets are misleading you.
Here is reasonably faithful illustration of a strip of negatives. I created this by scanning the negatives as a positive and then adjusting the result to look like how the strip appears to the naked eye.
Negatives 1 and 2 were exposed in diffused light, they print well, and are of a good density and contrast for both optical printing and scanning.

Negative 3 was exposed in more direct and contrasty light. It too prints well, and is of a good density and contrast for both optical printing and scanning.

Here is the result obtained from further inverting and then re-sizing negative 3.



All the inverting and, in particular, the resizing to Photrio's requirements of the latter image makes it look much less detailed and sharp than it appears in full size.

I post this to provide a visual reference, not to show the images themselves.