black and white neg - exposure and development digital vs traditional pathways

[pellicle]

Evenin folks

I'm almost certain that the answer to this is obvious to me, but incase I'm missing something I thought I'd ask around here (before I get yelled at over on APUG)

I normally expose my negatives on the assumption that I'm going to scan them and then get to printing via that pathway. As a result I normally don't do pulled development anymore.

However, I was working with a negative recently which I was tempted to make two sheets of, developing each differently ... for contact printing.

In my wisdom (and only having 2 sheets left, and wanting to keep another for "Justin Case") I chose to take only one of this.

This is it in preview on my flatbed (just sat on the glass as it has just enough buckle to keep newton rings at bay, nothing to disturb a preview)

as you can see it pretty much covers the tonal range of the film (which is how I normally like to work).

Inverted and levels set as seen above you can see the film base clearly and from this I get a good idea of what I have. Eg:

I normally like to keep the film base just visible in my scanner black / white point settings so I can play more carefully in PS later.

Now, when contact printing, I normally need to use a #4 or #5 filter for this sort of thing. In this instance I was completely unable to get a nice tonal range (like this):

click for bigger

from my negative on paper. In fact I could not even get rid of the film base without the entire thing being as dark as a night shot would be (and this wasn't the full moon, though you may not know it looking at those prints)

Essentially I'm wondering if there is a way to make a nicer print from this negative in the traditional way than I'm able to do (without contrast masking the neg, though perhaps that's an alternative).

So, is the answer "NO" as I sort of expect, or does somone have any cunning ways around this?

Because sometimes I like to use traditional printing, but my negs which have been good for that are a little 'flat' (in my view not using the full range of the neg) when scanning them. Perhaps I should compare and contrast this again, but last time I did pulled development for making a nicer print I thought it didn't scan as well...

 

[Bruce Watson]

optimize for traditional printing

In general, if you are *ever* going to print in the darkroom, optimize your film for darkroom printing. It will scan just fine.

Only optimize your film for scanning if you are *never* going to print in the darkroom. For just the reasons you cite.

I personally find that a flatter (lower Dmax) B&W negative scans better for me than a more "normal" negative that I'd use for darkroom printing. But that's for me, my images, my processing, my scanning. So clearly YMMV.

The other thing is to make sure your exposure is spot on. No amount of developer control will bring out shadow detail if your exposure didn't create a latent image to develop. That old saying "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" still holds, traditional printing or scanning.

 

[Loris Medici]

pellicle, maybe you can try to insensify the negative with KRST or process the negative with a rehalogenating bleach (dichromate + sulfuric acid) and re-develop in pyro??? (Seach for the formulas in the web.) I don't have an idea about how much contrast you'll gain, therefore play only if you're ready to completely loose the negative...

P.S. If the negative is too thin you can even try to tone it in sulfide. Sulfide toning will yield a color which is very effective in filtering UV/blue. (Maybe too much. So beware!!!)

P.S.2. BTW the scan (and histograms) look pretty normal (and printable in trad. way) to me. Are you completely sure that both your paper and chemistry are fresh?

 

[jeffreyg]

I would think that if you routinely need a 4 or 5 filter to wet print that your negatives are thin. Of course to each his own. I have been using Ilford Delta 400 (120) and HP5 (4x5) developed in ID11 to print with an Aristo VCL4500 grid lamp on Ilford FB Multi grade usually at grade 3-3.5 with a short zap at 4 and find that there is an excellent tonal range. I can print those negatives with pt/pd and I can scan the same negatives on a flatbed (Epson 4870 with SilverFast Ai6.6) and get similar results with minor adjustment and some adjusting in PS ie burning or dodging as I would don in the darkroom. I don't think that if you had more contrasty negatives you would have a problem scanning

 

[pellicle]

Hi

P.S.2. BTW the scan (and histograms) look pretty normal (and printable in trad. way) to me. Are you completely sure that both your paper and chemistry are fresh?

now that's a point ... paper yes, but the Dektol maybe not. Been a couple of months since I mixed up my last batch (divided into topped up Grolsch swing top 500ml dark green glass beer bottles [which is an excellent beer and well worth making the sacrifice to get cheap darkroom storage])

I was getting good blacks, so I'd have thought poor developer would result in bad blacks ... no?

thanks for the input on the histograms, I haven't thought of making a printable neg in (counts...) 6 years? None of them are here (being back in Australia) so I can't compare.

The neg doesn't look really dense, but as I want it to be mostly white perhaps it is?

 

[pellicle]

Hi Bruce

Only optimize your film for scanning if you are *never* going to print in the darkroom. For just the reasons you cite.

well you know, I don't even have an enlarger anymore ... so aside from contact prints for post cards to my friends I reckon its a fair call (my assumption I'm never going to print). I'm confident that noone's gonna say "gee chris, there's way too much base fog in your film base there"

least I don't reckon they will ;-)

so while it looked a little milky n lack luster, they'll just be more impressed when they see a 40cm wide carbon inkjet print later ;-)

btw ... anyone ever use a LUX meter to sort out exposure values for contact printing? I'm using a home grown arrangement here (involving a light bulb) so discussing my exposure times (for the print) would be meaningless without a reference.

thanks

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I would think that if you routinely need a 4 or 5 filter to wet print that your negatives are thin.

well, based on those histograms what do you think? (btw, the 4870 is quite similar I find I have one back in Australia)

They don't look thin to me, though I'm hardly classically trained.

I don't think that if you had more contrasty negatives you would have a problem scanning

I'm not sure if its contrasty or "longer tonal curve"

again, who am I to speak as I have not compared stuff with others?

 

[Loris Medici]

pellicle, how did you manage to use #4-5 filters while contact printing? (I mean w/o an enlarger?) Are you using multigrade gel filters? (Can't think of any other solution, what make are they?)

About the chemistry: if I'm in doubt, I mix fresh. OTOH, if it gives good blacks in 90-180 seconds (20-22C) then the developer should be fine...

 

[pellicle]

pellicle, how did you manage to use #4-5 filters while contact printing? (I mean w/o an enlarger?) Are you using multigrade gel filters? (Can't think of any other solution, what make are they?)

About the chemistry: if I'm in doubt, I mix fresh. OTOH, if it gives good blacks in 90-180 seconds (20-22C) then the developer should be fine...

I have a lamp which I fashioned a holder for, I slip in the square gel's into that to make a basic light source. I made a hinge for a bit of 5x7 glass picture frame and voila ... contact printing.

 

[jeffreyg]

Judging by your print I think the problem is with the original exposure. The snow with some detail should be in zone 8 possibly okay in zone 7. The pure white of the sun is probably zone 10. If that is the case the contrast is not there and a modification in exposure and/or development time would be needed which does not help with this negative. Consider also using a (yellow filter to reduce yellow in the snow)or an orange filter to boost contrast when taking the exposure.