A observation about reading newsprint through highlights

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Many times I've read that proper negative contrast is indicated by being able to just barely read newsprint through the highlights on my negatives. Recently I started thinking about how contrasty my negatives usually are. I've had trouble in the past getting tone in my skies and dealing with long burn times, i knew they were "bullet-proof" so i decided to experiment with shortening my developing times.
When i took 20% off of my times i was able to get negatives that printed easier and even had sky tone. (Yay!) So i took another 5% off of my time and got better results, however you cant read through my highlights at 25% less time. So i reduced the time to 30% less and now you can read through the highlights but now im having to print on grade 4 or 5 filters to get any contrast.

I did this as an exercise for fun and also wanted to see the effect of less dev time as it relates to this guideline

My question is how is it possible to get highlights that pass the newsprint test but also print well around grade 2 or so?

.

Ozxplorer · Nov 25, 2016

The other side of the equation is exposure. It is possible you are also over exposing your negatives. Exposure adds density whereas the development process controls contrast. Check your film speed settings and exposure meter as well... Might help with more information - which film/developer combination, development time and agitation applied. Fred

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Ozxplorer said:
The other side of the equation is exposure. It is possible you are also over exposing your negatives. Exposure adds density whereas the development process controls contrast. Check your film speed settings and exposure meter as well... Might help with more information - which film/developer combination, development time and agitation applied. Fred

Ahh..true. I didn't think of that. I'm so paranoid of having thin/blank negatives that I always err on the side of overexposure by 1 stop as a minimum. (setting meter to 200 on 400 film) I also try and meter for the shadows.
This happens with all devs that I normally use; most of the time it's Xtol 1:1 but I also use D76 1:1

Just for fun, I think I'll explore the overexposure angle now. Thanks for tipping me off.

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

By the way; I have an Analyser pro and it will do density readings. What is the "optimum" density highlight reading that I'd be shooting for on my negs?

Ozxplorer · Nov 25, 2016

rpavich said:
I also try and meter for the shadows

How do you go about metering for the shadows? Consider: if you measure for the shadows and make no adjustment to your exposure meter reading of the shadow area and you rate your film at a lower ISO (200 instead of 400) then effectively you are over exposing the negative by up to 3 stops hence, a very dense negative! In general terms, having measured the shadow area, the reading is usually reduced - either close down the aperture and/or increase the shutter speed by around 2 stops in order to place the shadow area below "middle grey" (the meter reading). To then manage the contrast by effectively reducing development time by up to 15% should yield a reasonably good negative - go easy on the agitation too whilst processing the film. Less is more!

Lastly, over exposing and under developing pre-supposes a higher than normal subject brightness range (no tone in sky for instance when all else is satisfactory) and requires you to adopt this method. However, dull, flat even lighting with low contrast subject interest needs yet another approach - just the opposite! Good luck...

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Ozxplorer said:
How do you go about metering for the shadows? Consider: if you measure for the shadows and make no adjustment to your exposure meter reading of the shadow area and you rate your film at a lower ISO (200 instead of 400) then effectively you are over exposing the negative by up to 3 stops hence, a very dense negative! In general terms, having measured the shadow area, the reading is usually reduced - either close down the aperture and/or increase the shutter speed by around 2 stops in order to place the shadow area below "middle grey" (the meter reading). To then manage the contrast by effectively reducing development time by up to 15% should yield a reasonably good negative - go easy on the agitation too whilst processing the film. Less is more!

Lastly, over exposing and under developing pre-supposes a higher than normal subject brightness range (no tone in sky for instance when all else is satisfactory) and requires you to adopt this method. However, dull, flat even lighting with low contrast subject interest needs yet another approach - just the opposite! Good luck...

Ahh...that really helped. I think that I'll step back a bit and start with stopping down after metering the shadows and see where that takes me.
thanks again.

Ozxplorer · Nov 25, 2016

rpavich said:
By the way; I have an Analyser pro and it will do density readings. What is the "optimum" density highlight reading that I'd be shooting for on my negs?

The Analyser Pro if properly calibrated will assist you to determine the brightness range of your negative and suggest which grade be used in order to match your negative with your paper choice. The negative has a wider tonal range than the paper is capable of producing. It is OK to print at different grades because there are just too many variables at play especially if you are a roll film user. To my mind a good negative has all the detail I'd like for my print and then some... I'll get back to you tomorrow on the density issue... Midnight now in Australia. Somewhere the sun is rising and others might help you in this regard as I sleep! Fred

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Ozxplorer said:
The Analyser Pro if properly calibrated will assist you to determine the brightness range of your negative and suggest which grade be used in order to match your negative with your paper choice. The negative has a wider tonal range than the paper is capable of producing. It is OK to print at different grades because there are just too many variables at play especially if you are a roll film user. To my mind a good negative has all the detail I'd like for my print and then some... I'll get back to you tomorrow on the density issue... Midnight now in Australia. Somewhere the sun is rising and others might help you in this regard as I sleep! Fred

Thanks Fred. As a start, I'm going to photograph my 18% grey card (which also has white and black on it) at different ISO's and then dev at different times and try and get back to square one. I'll begin at the manufacturers recommendation as a base to work off of.

Paul Howell · Nov 25, 2016

RPAVICH,

Reading newsprint though the highlight is only half of the rule of thumb, the other see to see details in the shadows. The thought is expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, this is bases for the Zone System and Beyond the Zone System. AA used the term contraction and expansion of development times to develop a negative to a "visualized" zone. Although the zone system can be used roll film in a limited way full control is best sheet film.

I won't go into the details, there are many good books on the subject, Carson Graves' The Zone System for 35mm Photographers is a good starting place.

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Paul Howell said:
RPAVICH,

Reading newsprint though the highlight is only half of the rule of thumb, the other see to see details in the shadows. The thought is expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, this is bases for the Zone System and Beyond the Zone System. AA used the term contraction and expansion of development times to develop a negative to a "visualized" zone. Although the zone system can be used roll film in a limited way full control is best sheet film.

I won't go into the details, there are many good books on the subject, Carson Graves' The Zone System for 35mm Photographers is a good starting place.

I do understand that, what puzzled me is that I almost had to get a negative devoid of contrast to be able to read newsprint through it...that's all. I was surprised.
Normally, I shoot 1 stop over and err on the side of "just a bit over meter" and then develop -15% or -20% and I get good shadow detail and no thin negs. Also, my negatives mostly print nicely at grade 2 or 2.5.

But with those results (which are fine) the newsprint reading thing isn't possible. That's why I asked.

ic-racer · Nov 25, 2016

rpavich said:
Many times I've read that proper negative contrast is indicated by being able to just barely read newsprint So i reduced the time to 30% less and now you can read through the highlights but now im having to print on grade 4 or 5 filters to get any contrast.

What has the internet created? Either an inability to think or just bad information out of context.

I read on the internet that when my dog poops on the negatives they should glow. But now when I print the negatives they don't have any image. What am I doing wrong....

baachitraka · Nov 25, 2016

Ozxplorer said:
The other side of the equation is exposure. It is possible you are also over exposing your negatives. Exposure adds density whereas the development process controls contrast. Check your film speed settings and exposure meter as well... Might help with more information - which film/developer combination, development time and agitation applied. Fred

I don't really think exposure do add density to negatives. Its the development time and agitation that adds the density. Temperature do play a role too.

baachitraka · Nov 25, 2016

rpavich said:
I do understand that, what puzzled me is that I almost had to get a negative devoid of contrast to be able to read newsprint through it...that's all. I was surprised.
Normally, I shoot 1 stop over and err on the side of "just a bit over meter" and then develop -15% or -20% and I get good shadow detail and no thin negs. Also, my negatives mostly print nicely at grade 2 or 2.5.

But with those results (which are fine) the newsprint reading thing isn't possible. That's why I asked.

Just print them using Grade 2 filter/settings and see what adjustments that you need to make a good negative.

sepiareverb · Nov 25, 2016

Do you have a negative that prints well you could use a measurement for density? I too prefer beefier negatives than most it seems, and I used a reading from a negative that prints easily in my darkroom as my target. Don't have numbers here, but can supply my highlight density reading when I'm home.

bernard_L · Nov 25, 2016

rpavich said:
But with those results (which are fine) the newsprint reading thing isn't possible. That's why I asked.

Leaving aside any sarcasm: you just debunked an Internet myth. If only more people would (a) be more skeptical; (b) do their own experiments (as you did).

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

sepiareverb said:
Do you have a negative that prints well you could use a measurement for density? I too prefer beefier negatives than most it seems, and I used a reading from a negative that prints easily in my darkroom as my target. Don't have numbers here, but can supply my highlight density reading when I'm home.

That would be interesting. I just shot a roll at: Box, +1 and +2 and then split the roll into 3rds and dev'd the roll at: Stock, -15% and -30%. I'm going to compare them to see what actually works.
Comparing my results with yours would be great.

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

bernard_L said:
Leaving aside any sarcasm: you just debunked an Internet myth. If only more people would (a) be more skeptical; (b) do their own experiments (as you did).

Well, I guess I did but I got it out of a Kodak book that I don't remember the name of. (for one place)

I didn't necessarily want to be able to read through my negs, I was just wondering about how that could be considering how low contrast they'd have to be to have that happen. It didn't seem to make sense.

Doremus Scudder · Nov 25, 2016

The optimum negative is the one with the least exposure that print the way you want it to (usually on an intermediate paper grade). For small film, getting the exposure to an acceptable minimum is important; for large film, overexposure is less of an issue.

You're on the right track with your testing; play with development and exposure till you get negs that print well and have the shadow detail you want. Forget about trying to read the newspaper or whatever through the highlights; the neg that makes the best print is the one you want.

Best,

Doremus

MattKing · Nov 25, 2016

One really important thing to realize about the "newsprint" test is that it originated when 35mm cameras were considered to use "miniature" film,

It is relatively hard to read type through highlights on a 35mm negative because those highlights are relatively tiny.

I'd suggest that you do what Doremus suggests. Once you have negatives that print well, take one that has a fairly large highlight area and try the newsprint test again. I think you may be pleasantly surprised at how useful that test remains.

By the way, for clarity, you need to use a printed newspaper, not one of those internet versions .

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Thanks Doremus and Matt, I have dry negs now and I'm going to evaluate what prints best. At the very least this was a good sanity check on my developing and exposing.

Tim Stapp · Nov 25, 2016

ic-racer said:
What has the internet created? Either an inability to think or just bad information out of context.

I read on the internet that when my dog poops on the negatives they should glow. But now when I print the negatives they don't have any image. What am I doing wrong....

Why reply in such an insulting manner? The man has shown over the past year that I have been on this forum that he is very actively working to learn and improve. I, as a beginner, have learned a great deal from reading the answers/observations others have provided to his questions/statements. Frankly, I believe that your statement was uncalled for and precisely why I rarely post here. If I want verbal abuse, I will call my ex wife.

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Well..how interesting the results!

I did the following:
I put an 18% grey target on my kitchen table and took a whole roll of film alternating at Box, then +1 stop and then +2 stops, over and over. I did this so that I could split the roll in the dark and be assured of getting one of each on each piece of the roll.

Then I developed the roll in the following way:

1.) Manufacturer's recommended time.

2.) 15% less than the manufacturer's recommended time.

3.) 30% less than the manufacturer's recommended time.

Once I had dry negs I:

1.) Made a contact sheet at D-max at grade 2.

2.) Printed the following negatives just because they looked the best based on the contact sheet.

a. Box speed at manufacturer's dev time, grade 2.

b. + 1 stop (ISO 200) and dev'd at -15% time from manufacturer's time, grade 2.

c. + 2 stops (ISO 100) and dev'd at -30% from manufacturer's time, grade 2.

The prints are nearly identical in look; the only way that they differ is in the deepest shadow detail (under the table) and the "deepness" of the blacks (at the edge of the target). All had enough shadow detail but in my opinion, the best print was the one taken at box speed and manufacturer's dev time. It had nice blacks and enough shadow detail and the midtone was "mid-tone-looking"

Not one of any of them were even close to being able to be read through in the highlights.

Now, this was in "normal" aka not high contrast conditions but it did answer the question for me of what's the best settings to use under "normal" conditions. I can see that if I were outside under very contrasty conditions then the "+2 stops / - 30%" would be a benefit but it cured my of my fear of not having enough exposure to get shadow detail.

FORGIVE THE CRAPPY IPHONE PICTURE OF MY CONTACT SHEET

Ozxplorer · Nov 25, 2016

Don't you sleep? Well, you've made progress! Well done! Now for the last part of the exercise... In order to get back to the original issue of "density" I suggest, using your Analyser Pro, you read the negative density of the grey card area for each of the exposures. Prepare a table to compare each negative with the another corresponding ISO for each of the development times. I believe the result will surprise you... When done, please post your findings, thank you - Fred.

Ozxplorer · Nov 25, 2016

Another thing... You've proved that the manufacturers do actually know what they are doing! Their recommendations, film speed and development times, generally work out OK... So, if we rely on their suggested settings we can concentrate on the art of photography while applying the craft as we understand it should be... Fred

rpavich · Nov 25, 2016

Ozxplorer said:
Don't you sleep? Well, you've made progress! Well done! Now for the last part of the exercise... In order to get back to the original issue of "density" I suggest, using your Analyser Pro, you read the negative density of the grey card area for each of the exposures. Prepare a table to compare each negative with the another corresponding ISO for each of the development times. I believe the result will surprise you... When done, please post your findings, thank you - Fred.

Haha, not much. I get about 5 hours a night...i get up between 1:00am and 3:00am.

Ill do the density check in the morning and report.

A observation about reading newsprint through highlights

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency