Black & White Printing with contrast control

Doc W · Aug 2, 2016

Doremus, I still don't understand why using magenta is somehow "better" sometimes. If the neg prints fine with equal amounts of magenta and yellow, what would be gained by adding more magenta? The more I read this thread, the less I understand the premise. Doesn't the negative play the major role? What exactly is being discussed here?

In any case, I use mostly Ilford MG paper and a Devere dichroic enlarger, and in my testing, I have found that beyond a certain point, I can increase the magenta all I want and it makes no difference whatsoever to the contrast.

Jim Noel · Aug 2, 2016

cliveh said:
For those of you who print with contrast control, how many of you find you dial in more magenta than yellow. I would bet most and wonder what this says about your exposure and development?

It says the film was underdeveloped.

M Carter · Aug 2, 2016

Doc W said:
Doremus, I still don't understand why using magenta is somehow "better" sometimes. If the neg prints fine with equal amounts of magenta and yellow, what would be gained by adding more magenta? The more I read this thread, the less I understand the premise. Doesn't the negative play the major role? What exactly is being discussed here?

In any case, I use mostly Ilford MG paper and a Devere dichroic enlarger, and in my testing, I have found that beyond a certain point, I can increase the magenta all I want and it makes no difference whatsoever to the contrast.

Is this because the dichro filters aren't as intense a magenta as what comes in, say, an ilford VC filter set? (I recall people using color enlargers noting they can't get to the extremes of the scale).

HiHoSilver · Aug 2, 2016

More than a little of the discussion is over my head or skill level, but excellent & helpful to this humble student. 'Preciate what's being shared. I get smarter from reading it.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 2, 2016

Patrick Robert James said:
I am with Bob. I like a thick neg and that requires magenta. I can't remember the last time I didn't use any magenta in a print.

??? Contrast is not considered a function of the density of a negative.

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 2, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
??? Contrast is not considered a function of the density of a negative.

I think if you saw how Patrick prints, it would be more obvious what he means. A picture speaks a thousand words. I agree, however, that density isn't really going to determine what contrast grade to use. But consider how granularity changes, for example. A negative that is dense will display more grain due to the larger silver grains. Then add a high contrast filtration on top of that, and you get pretty wild and (subjective opinion) beautiful grain as a result. That is a result that one can obtain from working this way, and is preferable to some.

Look at how Ralph Gibson worked, often totally contrary to convention, with overdeveloped negatives and then print on the hardest grade paper (I think Portriga Grade 6). I don't see that recommended anywhere, but he did OK for himself as a photographer / printer.

Bill Burk · Aug 3, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
??? Contrast is not considered a function of the density of a negative.

Bob Carnie already established he is working with a relatively low contrast lighting 1:5 (about 3 stops if I understand).

To fit on normal grade of paper he would have to develop to about a contrast gradient of 1.

I'll just assume he doesn't develop that much.

This whole thread is just asking the question "Who likes to print from relatively thin negatives onto relatively high contrast paper?"

I'll just say that I like to print on normal paper, so if I had Bob's lighting setup, I would develop the film to a contrast gradient of about 1

Bob Carnie · Aug 3, 2016

Also I should mention I solarize the bulk of my film, very dense and medium grey all across the board, need magenta to create the split- I have a grade 4 mentality .

David Allen · Aug 3, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
A negative that is dense will display more grain due to the larger silver grains.

The grain (black dots) that you see in a print comes from where the light passes through the gaps between the silver grains on the negative. Therefore, a denser negative will not necessarily create more grain in the print. This old chestnut crops up so often! Just think about the logic. The highlights on your negatives may have received more than 8 stops more exposure than the shadows. Are the highlights then 8 times more grainier than your shadows?

As to the reference to Ralph Gibson, he stated that he exposed Tri-X at 'nominally' ISO 200 (no great over-exposure there) but then also said he always exposed at f16 on bright sunny days. The key to the level of grain in his images can be found in the book "Darkroom" by Lustrum Press. He stated that he developed Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25 at 68F for 11 minutes, with ten seconds agitation every 90 seconds by rolling the tank on its side. This is approximately 50% over-development which he then went on to print on very high contrast papers.

To sum up, the biggest contributors to grain are:

Type of film (older tech films such as Foma are more grainy than newer tech films such as the current Tri-X which has more grain than T-Max)
Speed of film (accepting point one, a faster film will have more grain)
Choice of developer
Development time / frequency of agitation

In normal use, some additional exposure will not make any significant contribution to the appearance of grain. Insufficient exposure may have an effect because under-exposed negatives (as opposed to 'pushed') tend to need to be printed at higher grades.

The easiest way to achieve tons of grain with any film (relative to its inherent qualities when exposed and processed normally) is to over-develop it by at least 50%.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 3, 2016

David Allen said:
The grain (black dots) that you see in a print comes from where the light passes through the gaps between the silver grains on the negative. Therefore, a denser negative will not necessarily create more grain in the print. This old chestnut crops up so often! Just think about the logic. The highlights on your negatives may have received more than 8 stops more exposure than the shadows. Are the highlights then 8 times more grainier than your shadows?

As to the reference to Ralph Gibson, he stated that he exposed Tri-X at 'nominally' ISO 200 (no great over-exposure there) but then also said he always exposed at f16 on bright sunny days. The key to the level of grain in his images can be found in the book "Darkroom" by Lustrum Press. He stated that he developed Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25 at 68F for 11 minutes, with ten seconds agitation every 90 seconds by rolling the tank on its side. This is approximately 50% over-development which he then went on to print on very high contrast papers.

To sum up, the biggest contributors to grain are:

Type of film (older tech films such as Foma are more grainy than newer tech films such as the current Tri-X which has more grain than T-Max)

Speed of film (accepting point one, a faster film will have more grain)

Choice of developer

Development time / frequency of agitation

In normal use, some additional exposure will not make any significant contribution to the appearance of grain. Insufficient exposure may have an effect because under-exposed negatives (as opposed to 'pushed') tend to need to be printed at higher grades.

The easiest way to achieve tons of grain with any film (relative to its inherent qualities when exposed and processed normally) is to over-develop it by at least 50%.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

All I know is that - yes, my prints have more pronounced grain in the highlights. If that isn't attributable to silver grain size (and the space between them), then what does?

cliveh · Aug 3, 2016

Bob Carnie said:
Also I should mention I solarize the bulk of my film.

Bob has just played the joker card.

Doremus Scudder · Aug 3, 2016

Doc W said:
Doremus, I still don't understand why using magenta is somehow "better" sometimes. If the neg prints fine with equal amounts of magenta and yellow, what would be gained by adding more magenta? The more I read this thread, the less I understand the premise. Doesn't the negative play the major role? What exactly is being discussed here? ...

Doc,
See this article by Nicholas Lindan about the response of VC papers. http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotevcworkings.pdf

The issue here is not about changing contrast, it's that there's a characteristic of VC papers that results in an area of reduced separation in the mid-tones when using lower-contrast filtration. If I need a #1 filter, I'll use graded paper and a soft developer instead to avoid this. With more contrast dialed in, VC papers seem to work just fine.

Best,

Doremus

silveror0 · Aug 3, 2016

Doremus Scudder said:
...See this article by Nicholas Lindan about the response of VC papers. http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotevcworkings.pdf

The issue here is not about changing contrast, it's that there's a characteristic of VC papers that results in an area of reduced separation in the mid-tones when using lower-contrast filtration. If I need a #1 filter, I'll use graded paper and a soft developer instead to avoid this. With more contrast dialed in, VC papers seem to work just fine...

Doremus,
That link clearly explains the behavior of the soft grades of VC paper prior to Ilford's later products (MG Classic, MG Cooltone). You may want to give the later products a try, since Ilford seems to have solved these soft grade behavior problems. I've yet to try the latest papers, because I still have quite a stash of MGIV to use up. For comparisons, here are links to the various papers' tech sheets that show Ilford's characteristic curves:

MGIV- http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427105150454.pdf
MG Warmtone: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2013116122271278.pdf

Latest papers (faster speeds as well)
MG Classic: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2013116121925810.pdf
MG Cooltone: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20131161220152705.pdf

Thought you might need to know.

Patrick Robert James · Aug 3, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I think if you saw how Patrick prints, it would be more obvious what he means. A picture speaks a thousand words. I agree, however, that density isn't really going to determine what contrast grade to use. But consider how granularity changes, for example. A negative that is dense will display more grain due to the larger silver grains. Then add a high contrast filtration on top of that, and you get pretty wild and (subjective opinion) beautiful grain as a result. That is a result that one can obtain from working this way, and is preferable to some.

Look at how Ralph Gibson worked, often totally contrary to convention, with overdeveloped negatives and then print on the hardest grade paper (I think Portriga Grade 6). I don't see that recommended anywhere, but he did OK for himself as a photographer / printer.

I would anser Gerald directly, but Thomas did a splendid job for me.

David Allen · Aug 4, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
All I know is that - yes, my prints have more pronounced grain in the highlights. If that isn't attributable to silver grain size (and the space between them), then what does?

Well I am truly shocked! I have never observed this in any of my work or the work of colleagues. I have always found that areas of flat middle tones are where grain is most pronounced.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 4, 2016

David Allen said:
Well I am truly shocked! I have never observed this in any of my work or the work of colleagues. I have always found that areas of flat middle tones are where grain is most pronounced.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Perhaps it's a difference in printing? If I let highlights stay paper white, or close to it, for a more technically 'correct' print, then the grain is obviously not going to show up very much. But often I print down highlights, which is why I process my negatives the way I do, and when I do so, the grain becomes more apparent, in a way that I really like. That brings the tonality of the highlights closer to mid-tones, so in a way I agree with you, but they are still the highlights in the negative.

David Allen · Aug 4, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Perhaps it's a difference in printing? If I let highlights stay paper white, or close to it, for a more technically 'correct' print, then the grain is obviously not going to show up very much. But often I print down highlights, which is why I process my negatives the way I do, and when I do so, the grain becomes more apparent, in a way that I really like. That brings the tonality of the highlights closer to mid-tones, so in a way I agree with you, but they are still the highlights in the negative.

Yes that explains a lot. If your desired look for prints involves you printing down the highlights towards mid-grey then I can understand what you mean as the mid-greys always demonstrate the most granularity. If this suits your work and gives you what you want to achieve then that is great. However, I would suggest that, should you print the shadow areas of the negative to the same tonal mid-grey value, you will also observe the same level of granularity. This does not mean that the highlights have more grain, or that additional exposure creates more grain, but rather your desired look for your images gives you the grain that you like. Way back in the mists of time, I was willing to undertake such tests and I can definitely say that, for any given exposed negative, when you print any part of the negative to the same mid-grey value the granularity was the same.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 4, 2016

David Allen said:
Yes that explains a lot. If your desired look for prints involves you printing down the highlights towards mid-grey then I can understand what you mean as the mid-greys always demonstrate the most granularity. If this suits your work and gives you what you want to achieve then that is great. However, I would suggest that, should you print the shadow areas of the negative to the same tonal mid-grey value, you will also observe the same level of granularity. This does not mean that the highlights have more grain, or that additional exposure creates more grain, but rather your desired look for your images gives you the grain that you like. Way back in the mists of time, I was willing to undertake such tests and I can definitely say that, for any given exposed negative, when you print any part of the negative to the same mid-grey value the granularity was the same.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Well, I don't print them down that far, as to be middle grey. Just enough to give them texture rather than being stark white.

cliveh · Aug 4, 2016

Grain is more noticeable in highlights.

Doc W · Aug 4, 2016

Doremus Scudder said:
Doc,
See this article by Nicholas Lindan about the response of VC papers. http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotevcworkings.pdf

The issue here is not about changing contrast, it's that there's a characteristic of VC papers that results in an area of reduced separation in the mid-tones when using lower-contrast filtration. If I need a #1 filter, I'll use graded paper and a soft developer instead to avoid this. With more contrast dialed in, VC papers seem to work just fine.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus, this a very interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. I still can't connect this to the original post. Perhaps the OP should have elaborated just a little more.

Bill Burk · Aug 4, 2016

cliveh said:
Grain is more noticeable in highlights.

I think it's most noticeable around 0.15 reflection density... but then that's just my interpretation of a demonstration I did for discussion, not a hard fact.

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 5, 2016

Bill Burk said:
I think it's most noticeable around 0.15 reflection density... but then that's just my interpretation of a demonstration I did for discussion, not a hard fact.

What does that mean in English? Sorry, I have no idea what that means.

Bill Burk · Aug 5, 2016

A light gray.

Doc W · Aug 5, 2016

michael_r said:
It doesn't connect directly with the original post. Rather, the article offers a reason why (for the paper tested) it is preferable to avoid the lowest grades and make negatives that print using normal or higher contrast filtration.

Ilford's latest papers do not exhibit the problem outlined in the article, so the conclusion could easily change.

Michael, thanks. The main problem I have with the older Ilford fibre papers (specifically MGIV and MGIV WT) is that increasing the contrast only works up to a point. There seems to be some debate about this and it has come up a few times in the forum. I use dichroic filtration (a Devere) and I cannot get past what amounts to a contrast grade of about 3. I had a problem negative just last week - very low contrast - and I just didn't have enough contrast on the paper to make it look decent. Some have said it might be the dichroic head which yields only so much contrast. In any case, I always try to develop so that they print around grade 2 somewhere and I am slowly working my way to using only graded paper as much as possible.

silveror0 · Aug 5, 2016

.15 reflection density is Zone VII + 1/3 in the print, according to Way Beyond Monochrome.

Black & White Printing with contrast control

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency