As with most things, the closer you look at it, the more complex it becomes.
Yes, generally speaking, "best prints" (subjectively, but scientifically determined) come from negatives that are matched to the contrast grade or the paper being used. Ansel Adams et al. knew this well. Their admonition to aim for grade 2 was an attempt to hit the middle of the scale so that, when the inevitable variance or error crept in, they would have leeway on either side to do precisely this. Then, grade 2 was pretty much in the middle between grades 0 and 5. Plus, in those days, grade 2 paper usually gave better prints than grades on the outsides of the contrast range. At any rate, the idea was to optimize the negative contrast to fit the contrast range of the paper; even with graded papers, there were and are lots of ways to get intermediate grades.
These were general recommendations for everyday photographic work, of which fine-art photography was only a small part in those days.
However, when you understand and refine this principle, you end up optimizing negatives for mid-tone separation, or shadow detail, etc., if they are very important to the composition, and realizing that print manipulations will have to be done in the darkroom. Visualization and creative control of the medium are then balanced with the limitations in order to arrive at an image that is exceptional. In this sense, the contrast index of the negative is "ideal" when it yields the print that the photographer has visualized. This is in no way a denial of the "match the negative to the paper contrast" admonition, rather a step further.
As for "ideal" negative exposure, again, there are real considerations such as graininess and amount of tonal separation in the toe and shoulder of the curve to be taken into consideration. The idea of giving enough exposure to get the majority of the scene onto the straight-line portion of the characteristic curve is as valid now as it was then. Underexposure loses shadow detail and reduces the contrast of the low-density areas; overexposure compresses highlight separation. Being aware of these when exposing is still really important.
So, a negative exposed to get most of the scene in the middle of the curve and developed to the contrast that matches a target paper grade that lies in the middle of the available grades is likely to print well. For what it's worth, a negative like this can usually pass the newspaper-reading test used as a rough guide to identify severe departures from this general "norm."
For many, this kind of negative is something to aspire to, for others it is just a starting point for further refinement. I often overexpose 320TXP to get shadow detail up off the long toe of the film. I know that the film (in my developer) will hold highlight detail quite well with this overexposure. I have negatives that proper proof almost completely white (some would call them "bullet proof") that yield excellent prints. I also have a few TMY negatives that are really thin, with very little visible shadow detail, which, however, still print really well and with excellent separation and detail in the shadows. This is a characteristic of this film and often a thinner, "underexposed" neg is needed to tame the highs and still get the desired mid-tone separation.
And, while "best prints" statistically come from negatives matched to a paper's contrast range, I have had enough exceptions to this to recognize a scene that needs an overly contrasty negative and extensive dodging, burning and bleaching to make the print I want.
But, am I abandoning the principles exemplified in "match the negative to the paper"? I think not; rather I am refining that idea.
So, the ideal neg? I would say it is matched to the paper contrast and the photographer's intent, and if you can't read a newspaper through it, you have a good reason why.
Best,
Doremus
www.DoremusScudder.com
Yes, generally speaking, "best prints" (subjectively, but scientifically determined) come from negatives that are matched to the contrast grade or the paper being used. Ansel Adams et al. knew this well. Their admonition to aim for grade 2 was an attempt to hit the middle of the scale so that, when the inevitable variance or error crept in, they would have leeway on either side to do precisely this. Then, grade 2 was pretty much in the middle between grades 0 and 5. Plus, in those days, grade 2 paper usually gave better prints than grades on the outsides of the contrast range. At any rate, the idea was to optimize the negative contrast to fit the contrast range of the paper; even with graded papers, there were and are lots of ways to get intermediate grades.
These were general recommendations for everyday photographic work, of which fine-art photography was only a small part in those days.
However, when you understand and refine this principle, you end up optimizing negatives for mid-tone separation, or shadow detail, etc., if they are very important to the composition, and realizing that print manipulations will have to be done in the darkroom. Visualization and creative control of the medium are then balanced with the limitations in order to arrive at an image that is exceptional. In this sense, the contrast index of the negative is "ideal" when it yields the print that the photographer has visualized. This is in no way a denial of the "match the negative to the paper contrast" admonition, rather a step further.
As for "ideal" negative exposure, again, there are real considerations such as graininess and amount of tonal separation in the toe and shoulder of the curve to be taken into consideration. The idea of giving enough exposure to get the majority of the scene onto the straight-line portion of the characteristic curve is as valid now as it was then. Underexposure loses shadow detail and reduces the contrast of the low-density areas; overexposure compresses highlight separation. Being aware of these when exposing is still really important.
So, a negative exposed to get most of the scene in the middle of the curve and developed to the contrast that matches a target paper grade that lies in the middle of the available grades is likely to print well. For what it's worth, a negative like this can usually pass the newspaper-reading test used as a rough guide to identify severe departures from this general "norm."
For many, this kind of negative is something to aspire to, for others it is just a starting point for further refinement. I often overexpose 320TXP to get shadow detail up off the long toe of the film. I know that the film (in my developer) will hold highlight detail quite well with this overexposure. I have negatives that proper proof almost completely white (some would call them "bullet proof") that yield excellent prints. I also have a few TMY negatives that are really thin, with very little visible shadow detail, which, however, still print really well and with excellent separation and detail in the shadows. This is a characteristic of this film and often a thinner, "underexposed" neg is needed to tame the highs and still get the desired mid-tone separation.
And, while "best prints" statistically come from negatives matched to a paper's contrast range, I have had enough exceptions to this to recognize a scene that needs an overly contrasty negative and extensive dodging, burning and bleaching to make the print I want.
But, am I abandoning the principles exemplified in "match the negative to the paper"? I think not; rather I am refining that idea.
So, the ideal neg? I would say it is matched to the paper contrast and the photographer's intent, and if you can't read a newspaper through it, you have a good reason why.
Best,
Doremus
www.DoremusScudder.com
