Altering dev times for contrast...any point?

[Robert Canis]

I just thought I would put this out there but is there really any need to expose and develop each image differently according to its contrast?

Unless you have two film backs (I use 120) surely it's just not practical. On a single roll, for example, for a high contrast scene, I expose for the shadows then -2 stops, and for a normal contrast scene expose from a mid-tone. I then develop to give me a mid/low contrast negative which gives me all the detail I need. And then, if I want a higher contrast result I simply print on a higher grade and visa versa. So, although it's good to have an understanding of the HC scene = overexpose/underdevelop and LC scene = underexpose/overdevelop principle, is it really necessary to worry about how to dev for each scene or to trouble yourself with 2 backs?

 

[ic-racer]

For most pictures of recognizable subject matter, the need for selective contrast control of negatives was nearly eliminated by the advent of high quality graded paper in the 1970s,

Since selective development is easy to do with sheet film, it can provide an additional level of image control. However, seems on most internet forums, selective development leads to confusion.

 

[Robert Canis]

Yes, I can see the additional control for sheet film. Thanks for your response.

 

[juan]

You might also look at divided developers for roll film. Their intent is to develop fully the shadows but to keep the highlights under control. For a while I used Paul Farber ‘s divided D-76 with good results on rolls with widely varying contrast. Some say the developers don’t work well with modern films, but my experience was positive.

 

[Robert Canis]

You might also look at divided developers for roll film. Their intent is to develop fully the shadows but to keep the highlights under control. For a while I used Paul Farber ‘s divided D-76 with good results on rolls with widely varying contrast. Some say the developers don’t work well with modern films, but my experience was positive.

That's really interesting; thank you.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I just thought I would put this out there but is there really any need to expose and develop each image differently according to its contrast?

Unless you have two film backs (I use 120) surely it's just not practical. On a single roll, for example, for a high contrast scene, I expose for the shadows then -2 stops, and for a normal contrast scene expose from a mid-tone. I then develop to give me a mid/low contrast negative which gives me all the detail I need. And then, if I want a higher contrast result I simply print on a higher grade and visa versa. So, although it's good to have an understanding of the HC scene = overexpose/underdevelop and LC scene = underexpose/overdevelop principle, is it really necessary to worry about how to dev for each scene or to trouble yourself with 2 backs?

In a world of high-quality MC papers it has become less important to get the perfectly exposed and developed negative. In AA-times, it was the only way to get a perfect print; Nevertheless, if one really wants to master the craft, it is still essential to know how to get the best negative and how to deal with different lighting situations. at a minimum , it will give a better understanding of materials and equipment and that hasn't hurt anybody yet. But if your aim is to get a decent picture without carrying a ton of extra equipment, a good point-and shoot is all anybody needs. The last 2% of perfection are the hardest but also the most-rewarding!

 

[Lachlan Young]

A small reduction under ISO contrast (0.6) to maybe 0.5-0.55 is about the extent of rollfilm dev modifications you should try initially, unless you routinely work in much flatter light. It'll put pretty much any real-world contrast range within the grade 0-5 range. Ironically enough, XP2 Super does this essentially straight-out-of-the-box, if you don't mind C-41 development. Obviously there are plenty of other techniques to try if you are more interested in something more creative and less tied to orthodoxies of the 'ideal' negative.

 

[Bill Burk]

You might also look at divided developers for roll film. Their intent is to develop fully the shadows but to keep the highlights under control. For a while I used Paul Farber ‘s divided D-76 with good results on rolls with widely varying contrast. Some say the developers don’t work well with modern films, but my experience was positive.

Juan, it was Todd-Zakia-White in the New Zone System Manual that said thin emulsion films don’t absorb enough developer for two-bath water developers to be effective. They just said keep diluting the developer so you get longer than 3 minutes developing time and do water presoak when you have short developing times.

 

[Bill Burk]

They also suggested developing film to N-1 and use higher paper grade when you want N-2.

 

[juan]

There are lots of ways. What Ralph says above is right.

 

[Paul Howell]

When shooting sheet film and printing on grade 2 paper using a zoneish system I adjusted the developing time for where I visualized in what zone I wanted the highlights to fall. Last 7 or so years grade 2 paper has become harder and harder to come by to the point I don't know if anyone still makes it. Using VC papers, (Foma) I now exposed for zone III shadow details and adjust for the highlights when printing. Some really like split contrast printing, so far I have not had much success, still another tech that might work. When printing my older negatives that were scaled for grade 2 I find myself printing grade 2 1/2. Not to say that printing using the zone or beyond the zone system is not worthwhile, even with VC paper learning visualization exposing for the shadows and developing provides a lot fine control.

 

[Vaughn]

If you come across a scene (a money shot?) and do not have a second back, roll-up the partially exposed roll in the camera (if they are important images with very different SBR of the new image) and slap a new roll to get that important image. "Wasting" 2 or 3 bucks in order to get that great image is good economics.

For those using sheet film, determining the exposure and development of each sheet of film based on the needs of the individual scene/image is SOP.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I find two development times a good system, one for soft light and one for hard light, with two cameras or two backs.
Even with MG paper, I don't find a single development time the best way... Two times are simple enough and effective enough.

 

[voceumana]

I've found 2-bath developers to be viable--easy as heck, and reliable results with repeated use of the same developer. I modified Barry Thornton's 2-bath, and have used divided D-76 as well.

 

[Robert Canis]

In a world of high-quality MC papers it has become less important to get the perfectly exposed and developed negative. In AA-times, it was the only way to get a perfect print; Nevertheless, if one really wants to master the craft, it is still essential to know how to get the best negative and how to deal with different lighting situations. at a minimum , it will give a better understanding of materials and equipment and that hasn't hurt anybody yet. But if your aim is to get a decent picture without carrying a ton of extra equipment, a good point-and shoot is all anybody needs. The last 2% of perfection are the hardest but also the most-rewarding!

Thank you, appreciate your response. I understand, well, how to expose and develop for varying light conditions but it was more a hypothetical question, plus I often hike in upwards of 20km to a location (where very ounce counts!) and use both FP4 and HP5 where carrying 2 x backs per roll would be a little extreme!

 

[Robert Canis]

I find two development times a good system, one for soft light and one for hard light, with two cameras or two backs.
Even with MG paper, I don't find a single development time the best way... Two times are simple enough and effective enough.

Ideally, me too but since I use FP4 and HP5 carrying 4 backs (especially on hikes) can get a little heavy!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ideally, me too but since I use FP4 and HP5 carrying 4 backs (especially on hikes) can get a little heavy!

Why do you need to carry both?

 

[Robert Canis]

I'm a nature photographer so cover subjects from macro to landscape and night work where reciprocity with FP4 is way too long. I like to use FP4 for landscapes and day-time LE work and HP5 for flowers (where the extra 2 stops helps with stopping subject movement) and for night work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Simply carry TMY400 instead. Finer grain, better reciprocity, longer straight line, and true 400 speed. Way sharper than HP5. And of course one always needs to develop to the optimal contrast for printing.
With roll film, this pretty much needs to take into account the majority of shots on a particular roll. If there's an odd duck on the same roll, well, there are various VC paper tricks to handle that kind of anomaly too, But I personally think that resorting to compensating developers or AA's old suggestion to develop everything N-1 just in case is horrible advice.
I treat roll film just like sheet film with respect to development, with the exception already noted, where an exposure or two might be present on the same roll requiring special printing tricks. I'd rather have to jump through that particular hoop than have all the otherwise ideal shots compromised in some manner using a mushy formula. But with two backs, most of that anxiety would be alleviated.

My own success ratio with roll film exposures is extremely high. Forget all the old graded paper talk. If one is familiar with that, and knows ZS technique too, that's fine. But that's all in the rear view mirror for me. When I carry two roll film backs, one will have a b&w film like TMX100, the other, color film like Ektar. Or I might carry two 6x9 rangefinders, one over each shoulder, and one with b&w film, the other with color. The main point is to become very familiar with specific films, so that shooting them is nearly intuitive. Yes, you need a meter; but selecting the right film for the anticipated situation is very important too.

 

[Vaughn]

I'm a nature photographer so cover subjects from macro to landscape and night work where reciprocity with FP4 is way too long. I like to use FP4 for landscapes and day-time LE work and HP5 for flowers (where the extra 2 stops helps with stopping subject movement) and for night work.

For low-light situations where one has the time, the FP4+ reciprocity failure (RF) can be used as a contrast control. I do so quite a bit to boost the contrast by reducing the correction for the RF, and either using normal or increased development depending on the scene's brightness range. And a lot depends on the scene and how one wants to use the shadows. Another tool in the tool box.

 

[Robert Canis]

Simply carry TMY400 instead. Finer grain, better reciprocity, longer straight line, and true 400 speed. Way sharper than HP5. And of course one always needs to develop to the optimal contrast for printing.
With roll film, this pretty much needs to take into account the majority of shots on a particular roll. If there's an odd duck on the same roll, well, there are various VC paper tricks to handle that kind of anomaly too, But I personally think that resorting to compensating developers or AA's old suggestion to develop everything N-1 just in case is horrible advice.
I treat roll film just like sheet film with respect to development, with the exception already noted, where an exposure or two might be present on the same roll requiring special printing tricks. I'd rather have to jump through that particular hoop than have all the otherwise ideal shots compromised in some manner using a mushy formula. But with two backs, most of that anxiety would be alleviated.

My own success ratio with roll film exposures is extremely high. Forget all the old graded paper talk. If one is familiar with that, and knows ZS technique too, that's fine. But that's all in the rear view mirror for me. When I carry two roll film backs, one will have a b&w film like TMX100, the other, color film like Ektar. Or I might carry two 6x9 rangefinders, one over each shoulder, and one with b&w film, the other with color. The main point is to become very familiar with specific films, so that shooting them is nearly intuitive. Yes, you need a meter; but selecting the right film for the anticipated situation is very important too.

That's a very good suggestion but, personally, I am not a big fan of T grain emulsions.

 

[Robert Canis]

If you come across a scene (a money shot?) and do not have a second back, roll-up the partially exposed roll in the camera (if they are important images with very different SBR of the new image) and slap a new roll to get that important image. "Wasting" 2 or 3 bucks in order to get that great image is good economics.

For those using sheet film, determining the exposure and development of each sheet of film based on the needs of the individual scene/image is SOP.

Good idea!

 

[138S]

I just thought I would put this out there but is there really any need to expose and develop each image differently according to its contrast?

Unless you have two film backs (I use 120) surely it's just not practical. On a single roll, for example, for a high contrast scene, I expose for the shadows then -2 stops, and for a normal contrast scene expose from a mid-tone. I then develop to give me a mid/low contrast negative which gives me all the detail I need. And then, if I want a higher contrast result I simply print on a higher grade and visa versa. So, although it's good to have an understanding of the HC scene = overexpose/underdevelop and LC scene = underexpose/overdevelop principle, is it really necessary to worry about how to dev for each scene or to trouble yourself with 2 backs?

If you shot a linear film like Kodak TMX and later you scan then you may bend the curve in photoshop like you want... you only need to scan 16bits per channel and to edit properly, while making sure your shadows have enough exposure to record detail. This is a kid's game: if the scene has too much range then you end bending the curve (in Photoshop) in S shape, compressing toe and shoulder to have a good depiction on paper or in the monitor.

But problem happens when you have a high dynamic range (contrasty scene) and you want to use a pure optic process (darkroom) to craft a sound image in the traditional way. Tou may use a lowe contrast grade but then mids became dull, so at the end yo have tp do the same you did with photoshop: compressing shadows/highlights and allowing mids to have contrast enogh, what was a kid's game with photoshop may require true master printer in the darkroom.

Essentially, for a pure optic crafting you have to ways:

1) Crafting a negative that easily prints like you want, this commands mastering exposure and development techniques to craft that negative. Zone System takes advantega of the behaviour of classic films to compress highlights and shadows a allow printing easily your visualization.

2) Taking a well linear capture that would be more flexible in the printing, (for example) instead having detail compressed in the shoulder you conserve detail there, fully well recorded without any compression, TMX is linear even by +6 overexposure... but that well recorded detail does not print easy becuase when your contrast for the mids is ok then the highlights are blown "white", so you have to burn those highlights with a lower grade or use advanced (time consuming) techniques like HLM masking.

Both ways are good, and any intermediate strategy is also good... but when scene range does not fit in the paper it does not fit... obviously. We may clip what is does not fit, or we may compress the extremes of the range, then we can perform that necessary compression in the negative, in the darkroom or in photoshop...

When we play with development we are playimg with the first strategy. We not only change contrast, we also may "compensate", this is to selectively and partially arresting development in the highlights, for example Diafine des that, but also Stand development.

Often we don't use strategy 1 or two, but a combination.

...but keep in mind that modifiying development may be useful to modify tonality an grain structure. Not necessary mastering all that to craft great images, but those are powerful tools that we can use if we are brave enough and we like.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

I wonder about the value of trying to do exposure/development compensation with mixed-contrast scenes on the same roll versus doing it all in the darkroom with normally developed negatives and using split-grade printing with VC papers instead. I've not tried split-grade printing yet and plan to start doing so. With single sheet film I guess one can do exposure/development compensation in combination with split-grade printing to deal with managing dynamic range for maximum results? I'm especially intrigued by the Heiland split-grade printing system - it seems that nirvana would be the automatic split-grade filter module plus the cold light source - but at a cost ($3.5K USD for my LPL 4550) - but I plan to just try it manually for now (how I'll make it work correctly with a VCCE head will be another fun thing to figure out). As the article says, "split-grade printing is one of those alternative techniques that works all of the time for some and some of the time for all" but it seems like a great general approach.

https://users.wfu.edu/~jrpickel/pdfs/split_grade_printing.pdf

 

[138S]

I wonder about the value of trying to do exposure/development compensation with mixed-contrast scenes on the same roll versus doing it all in the darkroom with normally developed negatives and using split-grade printing with VC papers instead.

In Large format we have the opportunity to make a custom development for each individual sheet, or we simply group those shots requiring (say) N-1.

We have techniques that are valid for rolls, for example diafine developer is a highly compensating way, or stand...

Also, depending on our particular subject (sunny vs cloudy, kind of scenes in the roll ) we may use something not standard. I've a proficient friend that shot (for 2 decades) TMY ay EI 200 developed N-1, now he shots TMX at box speed developed normally, but he presently shots different subjects...

____________________________

Regarding Split Grade, this is mostly the same than non Split grade. An Split Grade printing ends in the same than using a particular grade. At the end after exposing with (say) Grade 2 we also burn highlights with 00 and shadows with 5... Split grade has a single (usually minor) advantage compared to regular: we can dodge some areas in the 00 exposure or in the 5 exposure. After using a particular grade we can allso burn different areas with different grades, but dodging 00 or 5 can only be done in Split.

For the basic adjustment of a print (before image manipulation activity) we vary Exposure and Contrast. In Split Grade we (usually) adjust that in a different way, we adjust the Yellow (green+red) exposure for the highlights and the Purple (blue+red) for the shadows. With regular printing we usually adjust exposure for the highlight and later we adjust grade for the shadows. At the end it's the same, done in different ways. Split Grade provides no miracle, just another workflow, with the minor advantage of a more selective dodging, if we master that.