A observation about reading newsprint through highlights

rpavich said:

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?

.

Click to expand...

This is not to try to answer any of your questions but to thank you for starting this discussion. I have learned more from this post than any, I believe, that I have read since joining APUG. Thank you again......Regards!

The "ideal" negative has desired shadow detail (exposure) and is developed to a contrast that prints/sc*ns well. Additionally, minimum exposure to get the shadows desired helps keep grain down (important with small film).

In the "good old days," films had definite shoulders and more grain and contrast control at the printing stage was less flexible. Getting the negative right was important. The newspaper test was a down-and-dirty way of checking that you were neither overexposing or overdeveloping. These days it seems more logical to simply make some test prints (like M Carter above) using minimum exposure for max. black as a benchmark or test sc*ns. Once done, one can then use "good" negatives as a visual reference to judge others. Checking a negative known to print easily on an intermediate paper grade with the newspaper test should confirm the advice of past practitioners.

Best,

Doremus

Backlighting the paper will defeat the intent of the contrast part of the test. It depends on light having to pass twice thru the negative before it reaches the eye.

I might also mention that the test works best with MF and LF negatives. It's hard to isolate a particular region of a 35mm negative to view. However the density test still works fine.

I might also mention that the two tests are based on sound principles which explains why they endured so long before being mention in the photo mag.

It is definitely easier to do this test with 6x6 negatives than with 35mm, especially contrast was easier to evaluate using the newspaper test with 6x6 negs. For 35mm, film base + fog makes the light areas so dark already that the contrast was difficult to evaluate using this method. However it did still help me with 35mm...

Here's a contact sheet from a set of tests I ran on 35mm FP4+ with HC-110 at different dilutions and development times (the published FP4 and HC-110 test times seemed way off, see row 2). The last test (row 5) gave the best "newspaper test" results, at least the way that Gerald described it. It also seemed to give the best contact print with a #2 filter.

It's not the most scientific test... All FP4+ EI 125 in a Canon A-1 with a fresh battery, except row 1.
Contact print exposure time was found for the Row 5 strip of negatives. Printed on Ilford MGIV Pearl paper and scanned with an Epson V550.

Top edge: paper white, for reference
Row 1: HP5 test, ignore plz
Row 2: +0, -5, -4, -3, +1, +2, +3, 1+31, 9:00 @ 20C
Row 3: +0, -5, -4, -3, +2, +3, +4, 1+39, 7:00 @ 20C
Row 4: +0, -5, -4, +2, +3, +4, 1+80, 7:00 @ 20C (Sunny scene at the end)
Row 5: +0, -5, -4, +2, +3, +4, 1+60, 7:00 @ 20C (Overcast scene at the end, metered for brick wall)

Row 3, something seems off with -5, -4, -3 exposures as they are showing more tone than the above row.

When checked in lightroom, paper white reference was at around 95% intensity, and the middle of the Row 5, +4 frame hits about 93% intensity. Anyways, this is all to say that the newspaper test (I actually used the Way Beyond Monochrome pages to test) worked for me to eyeball the approximate right development times and I'll keep using it until I don't need it anymore. Great discussion, thanks everyone!

Just print the neg. You want adequate detail in the blacks (controlled by exposure) and whites that are neither grey nor without detail ( controlled by time in developer ). You can not compensate for one being off by changing the other for a master print.

Further any test must take into account condenser or diffusion enlarger, your paper of choice, and any other variables.

Some of my favourite prints have come from less than perfect negatives.

Whilst it's nice to have a 'perfectly' exposed neg, it's amazing what can be achieved with a bit of vision and perseverance. If you make test strips at different grades you can see what tones are available in the negative. It's then possible, if not difficult, to achieve a mix of any of those tones in your final print.

Sometimes you get a perfect photo with imperfect exposure. Testing and measuring is fine if that's your thing, but having fun with a Holga has tought me that getting caught up in the technical aspects can totally get in the way of a good photo.

A good photo doesn't have to be technically perfect. Many technically 'perfect' photos are anything but interesting on any other level.

TLDR; Try and get a good exposure, but don't worry about a little bit of imperfection.