Boring shadow separation question

[Craig75]

Because im all about the most grueling questions at the minute.

In these two situations which (if either) will produce the most shadow separation

Standard manufacturer's development and printed on grade 2

Vs

N-1 development and printed on grade 3

Does the increase in contrast of the paper outstrip amy reduction in contrast in the toe region by reducing development?

I was shooting in an abandoned building handheld where some parts were in deep shadow and other parts were in f8 sun (where roof or part of a wall was missing). No spotmeter to check how dark the darkest parts were but which of these options, if either, would give me best deep shadow separation.

The way id check would be just taking a picture of a grey card at -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 in both scenarios, contact printing them and seeing if there is a difference but i wont have a darkroom for a year at least so i appeal to the hive mind.

My own feeling is n-1 and harder grade.

 

[MattKing]

N-1 and print on variable contrast paper, using split grade techniques to give different contrast to different parts of the scene.
Don't you hate it when someone doesn't exactly answer the question you asked?

 

[Craig75]

Absolutely not. Totally up for all ideas on how to wring out as much shadow separation as possible in as many ways as possible. I think the worst i was shooting in was over 8 stops. A warehouse with open sun coming through steel beams no roof leading long way down into roofed section with an office at back wall and it was very dark there. No spotmeter and only had f3.5 lens so just opened it up to f4 1/125 iso 400 and hoped for the best. Other places in the complex it looked 7 stops and a few far more standard 5 or 6 stop scenes out in open in bland uk winter sun.

Ive had zero luck with splitgrade printing. My shadows held detail but looked really soft and wooly. That could be because i was using a really old durst with a colour head though which could barely reach grade 4.

I guess ideally over develop print on hardest grade possible for the shadows and then take care of highlights by other means but some scenes looked far too contrasty already to get away with n+1 or longer so im stuck with either n or n-1

 

[MattKing]

Shadow separation is wonderful, but what if there aren't any separated shadows in the first place?
If you have mono-tone shadows that are illuminated with really flat light, you might need to use a whole bunch of expansion (not contraction) to get them to render pleasingly. And if you do that, the rest of the scene becomes unusable.
In those sorts of circumstances, your solution won't be found in exposure and development controls, it will be found in either modifying the lighting or making multiple exposures and combining them in the darkroom.

 

[Craig75]

Yes ideally expansion would be way forward but it looked very high contrast scene so like you say it is probably going to make some of the highlights a grey mess on shoulder.

Ideally yes some flash on a trigger deep into warehouse or a sandwich of two exposures would be a good solution but... its being demolished so they have brought in some big vehicles and there is occasional patrols of the site so its a question of handheld in and out. I only had a f3.5 shift lens so it was f4 1/60th and hope for the best. At its brightest light looked f16 1/400 depending on gaps in cloud so ive probably maxed out the film range as best as i can handheld.

Right at back of warehouse it looked pretty gloomy. You could make out some details - bars over window, a door etc but a lot will just block up unavoidably. Leading into that back wall tho was a nice drop off in light as the last 10 metres or so of the roof was still on while the rest was just the steel skelton. In that zone there looked to be gains and losses to be made in separating those shadows to try and stop it blocking up too quick.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Skip the N-1 exposure! Open the aperture a f/stop [over expose for more detail] then print on variable contrast papers with the best filter contrast for that photograph. You do not have to make your life harder to enjoy photography.

 

[Craig75]

Skip the N-1 exposure! Open the aperture a f/stop [over expose for more detail] then print on variable contrast papers with the best filter contrast for that photograph. You do not have to make your life harder to enjoy photography.

Ha no i really enjoyed my brief afternoon looking for shots in there. But when the lens is a f3.5 and i am only confident shooting at slowest of 1/125 (looong time since ive used an slr so maybe i could go slower) then i can only take what im given and try and work out how to maximise it all later

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ha no i really enjoyed my brief afternoon looking for shots in there. But when the lens is a f3.5 and i am only confident shooting at slowest of 1/125 (looong time since ive used an slr so maybe i could go slower) then i can only take what im given and try and work out how to maximise it all later

Use a faster film.

 

[Craig75]

Use a faster film.

I had hp5 but yes some delta 3200 would have been more useful.

 

[Craig75]

Being obsessive about print quality, and having gone through all the controls in detail and come full circle, "N" development of the negative is usually best, or sometimes a mild contraction in certain cases. This applies to the full range of tones - not just shadows, but mid-tones all the way to extreme highlight detail.

Thank you Michael. I know you enjoy shooting in low light.

Where is my logic wrong with cutting development (by say 10%) and printing harder should force the shadows apart a bit more? Is it just not enough to make any visible difference?

 

[kevs]

Which film / developer are you using? Different film / developer combinations give vastly differing results. This info is likely to get you more useful replies from others.

A coloured filter over the taking lens helps differentiate tones but effectively cuts the film speed; a deep red will need four times the exposure (two stops) than normal. A yellow filter cuts about one stop.

B&W film is quite forgiving of over-exposure but will quickly drop shadow details when underexposed, so you might find your dense highlights on the neg have enough detail to be printed, albeit with lots of burning-in. More traditional films like FP4+ tend to be most forgiving in terms of latitude. Over-developing film will boost shadow details *and* contrast; this may not be what you need if your subject has a wide brightness range.

You could use water-bath development or a two-bath developer to bring up deep shadow details without making the highlights too dense. I've never tried this technique.

When printmaking, you can bring in difficult-to-print highlights using the paper flashing technique, which I've never tried. If your negs are very contrasty, you need to be printmaking with less contrast, not more.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ha no i really enjoyed my brief afternoon looking for shots in there. But when the lens is a f3.5 and i am only confident shooting at slowest of 1/125 (looong time since ive used an slr so maybe i could go slower) then i can only take what im given and try and work out how to maximise it all later

Use a faster film.

I had hp5 but yes some delta 3200 would have been more useful.

Longer exposure, lean against a wall if necessary.
Use a tripod.

 

[grain elevator]

Sirius Glass, the film is exposed and the OP is asking how to make the best of it.
I, too, can't answer the question. I doubt the difference would be significant in any case, if you haven't been able to meter the critical shadows they could be waaay under, or just fine; the chance that they are marginal and would really benefit from a bit more development aren't great. If you plan to wet print, I'd develop as normal, dense highlights aren't that hard to deal with, and straight print of such a scene will probably not be satisfactory anyway. If you'll scan, it depends on the ability of your scanner to deal with dense highlights. Use compensating development!

 

[Craig75]

Which film / developer are you using? Different film / developer combinations give vastly differing results. This info is likely to get you more useful replies from others.

A coloured filter over the taking lens helps differentiate tones but effectively cuts the film speed; a deep red will need four times the exposure (two stops) than normal. A yellow filter cuts about one stop.

B&W film is quite forgiving of over-exposure but will quickly drop shadow details when underexposed, so you might find your dense highlights on the neg have enough detail to be printed, albeit with lots of burning-in. More traditional films like FP4+ tend to be most forgiving in terms of latitude. Over-developing film will boost shadow details *and* contrast; this may not be what you need if your subject has a wide brightness range.

You could use water-bath development or a two-bath developer to bring up deep shadow details without making the highlights too dense. I've never tried this technique.

When printmaking, you can bring in difficult-to-print highlights using the paper flashing technique, which I've never tried. If your negs are very contrasty, you need to be printmaking with less contrast, not more.

HP5+ . Developer no idea - if someone has some ideas here im up for it - im not fussy about developers at all just as long as it's ilford.

 

[Craig75]

Sirius Glass, the film is exposed and the OP is asking how to make the best of it.
I, too, can't answer the question. I doubt the difference would be significant in any case, if you haven't been able to meter the critical shadows they could be waaay under, or just fine; the chance that they are marginal and would really benefit from a bit more development aren't great. If you plan to wet print, I'd develop as normal, dense highlights aren't that hard to deal with, and straight print of such a scene will probably not be satisfactory anyway. If you'll scan, it depends on the ability of your scanner to deal with dense highlights. Use compensating development!

Just thinking about it - im guessing at its brightest outside - say clouds were f/16 1/400 and i shot at f4 1/125 i think i got about 11 stops captured in total - ive probably put any clouds you could see through the beams on the shoulder - that should be enough i think - (no front wall on it, half the roof off, back wall on it and about 10 metres of roof covering that with sun out lighting it all at low height at right angle - so plenty going on). Slow lens didnt help matters, but the shift on it was really useful for other shots and thats my walk around lens for next few months.

I never really bother with a meter unless i happen to find myself in abandoning buildings when i will use a spotmeter to help me out but that got lost in a fire and my camera doesnt have a meter. Bought a camera with a spotmeter the next day though after shooting in there...

Yes im dubious it will make a visible difference having typed it "outloud" - might make a marginal difference with a densitometer (maybe?) that not much use if our eyes cant see it.

ramping contrast all the way up for shadows and then masking them off to print in highlights is probably going to max out separation in shadows.

I think Michael's findings are the best way to go. Develop it normally and just sort it all out later in darkroom.

after all this I will look at contact sheet and my finger will be over the lens and its the most bland shot possible.

[edited for crappy maths]

 

[kevs]

HP5+ . Developer no idea - if someone has some ideas here im up for it - im not fussy about developers at all just as long as it's ilford.

I suggest starting with ID-11; it's a good, all-round developer and is my standard dev for film. It's good for pushing too.

Ilford lists their devs at their website: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/beginners-guide-film-developers

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you want better shadow gradation you need to get the shadows up onto the straight line portion of the film curve. That means more exposure and/or a film choice having a longer straight line and less toe to begin with. HP5 has a fair amount of toe, FP4 less, Kodak TMY400 even less toe (but with more effective speeds than HP5). Dev choice and printing method are secondary questions. But do not minus develop the film or flash the paper - either would be counterproductive. The whole point is to get a cooperative neg right from the start. ....No meter reading? Don't expect any tears of sympathy either when things turn out wrong.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just thinking about it - im guessing at its brightest outside - say clouds were f/16 1/400

No skies are brighter. That is why it is important not to take a reading of the skiy.

 

[albada]

The real controls are under the enlarger. This is where the gains are made, and that is especially the case when it comes to photographing in high contrast situations.

Yes!
If your subject is mostly highlights and shadows, and not much in-between, then split-grade printing should work well for you. Expose the paper for the shadows. Then burn-in the bright areas with the 00 or 0 filter, and the adjacent shadows will not darken substantially.
Mark Overton

 

[Craig75]

If you want better shadow gradation you need to get the shadows up onto the straight line portion of the film curve. That means more exposure and/or a film choice having a longer straight line and less toe to begin with. HP5 has a fair amount of toe, FP4 less, Kodak TMY400 even less toe (but with more effective speeds than HP5). Dev choice and printing method are secondary questions. But do not minus develop the film or flash the paper - either would be counterproductive. The whole point is to get a cooperative neg right from the start. ....No meter reading? Don't expect any tears of sympathy either when things turn out wrong.

Haha yes. Abandoned buildings are the one place i always use a spotmeter normally but that and all my cameras got lost in a fire so I have a manual slr as my only camera.

I will take what im given by my crappy metering by eye and shut up!

Lens tops out at f3.5 so f4 1/125 would probably be the best i could do handheld anyway.

 

[Craig75]

When it comes to film processing, it’s largely a “zero-sum game” at best. “No free lunch” etc etc. you know what I mean. Cutting development reduces separation - including in the shadows. When you reduce total contrast, you reduce “local” contrast.

The real controls are under the enlarger. This is where the gains are made, and that is especially the case when it comes to photographing in high contrast situations.

Its always the way. Think is there some mystical combination of events that will give one a better start when it comes to the darkroom but there never is. I will be asking if the position of the moon makes any difference to turbulence in the tank next...

I used to have sensitometry for photographers which was written in a way i could understand. Sounds to me like i need to buy that book again.

 

[Nodda Duma]

If you haven’t developed yet, instead of N-1 you can stand develop (or low agitation develop or develop with a low contrast developer) to reduce contrast but still get your full range onto the straight portion of the curve by developing a bit longer. I’m pretty sure HP5 will respond well to that. Then you will be better positioned going into the darkroom to separate your shadows.

 

[pentaxuser]

. I will be asking if the position of the moon makes any difference to turbulence in the tank next...

At last. Now you are talking about getting somewhere close to the real answer. What was its position?

pentaxuser

 

[Craig75]

The good news is that there are often several ways of doing things that can get you to great prints. There are lots of excellent printers, almost none of whom are correct about what they say is happening. This has always been the case.

Expect a thread in a year if i ever get my house back moaning that Ive underexposed / overexposed the shot by 17 stops and what can i do next while Drew rightfully gives me a hard stare.

 

[Craig75]

At last. Now you are talking about getting somewhere close to the real answer. What was its position?

pentaxuser.

im at 54.5236° N, 1.5595° W altitude of 55m. I dont know whether moving higher up and nearer to the equator might help with that toe bump.