Clip tests and judging exposure and dev times

How does one develop the eye to look at negatives and judge over or under exposure and under or over development?

I've read about judging negatives and interpreting whether they were over or under exposed and whether they were over or under developed.

I've even done clip tests and settled on development times. But to be honest, I've had people look at my negs and instantly recognize if they were underexposed by "just a bit". I look at it and can only tell only in gross terms.

I guess my judgment is not so subtle.

Just FYI, I shoot mainly 35mm and right now am using HP5 and Efke 25. My favorite film, however, is FP4+.

Efke: 25 ISO, HC-110 Dil. B, 7 min @ 68F.
HP5: 400 ISO, HC-110 Dil. B, 5 min. @ 68

I use a Patterson tank, agitate about six turns every minute. Use plain water stop, Patterson Rapid Fix for about 5 mins. Wash (Ilford method).

practice, practice, practice...........that's the skinny of it, really.

Dear katphood,

1) Purchase a "Kodak Black & White Darkroom DATAGUIDE". There is a great set of examples in there.

2) Don't sweat small development/exposure deviations. They can almost always be handled when printing.

Neal Wydra

When I first started, a good simple standard was to lay the negative over a newspaper or book with fine type, and see how it reads.
There should be dark areas *highlights* where you cannot read the type and also clear areas * shadows where you can easily read the type.
In between these areas should be a whole range of tones * full bodied negative* that define the *midtones*.
Massive overexposure and development will make it harder to read the type in the mid to highights.
Massive underexposure and development you will read the type with no problem throughout the neg.

Why not just do a quick contact print. If you see what you want, without much fuss, then... success.

Isn't the bottom line that you want a neg that gives you what you want without having to do backflips during the printing stage??

I'm very skeptical about someone holding up a neg and judging right there that it is over/underdeveloped etc. Gross judgements, sure... but we have to think about the contrast index of the neg and the desired form of output and paper grade etc. as a whole. Sometimes you want high CI, sometimes you don't. And the in-camera exposure and SBR might well be playing a bigger role than the development.

This brings me to what I consider to be The advantage of sheet film. If I really like a scene then I will shoot it identically a few times, and test it right through to the contact print. Then within an hour or two I know whether to go back and develop the [identically exposed] neg in a different way. You can do this with roll film but not as easily.

I agree with Keith here. The only perfect negative is one that gives you the print quality you desire. The only way to understand that dynamic is to print your negatives - often! Only then can you tell whether you need to make adjustments to your film development or not. The perfect negative for a certain situation could possibly be slightly under developed, or slightly over exposed.
- Thomas

Some great advice here. Thank you all.

Just FYI, I don't print very many. I don't have an enlarger or a darkroom. (Just a dark bag for loading the tank.) I scan the negs and those that come out really well get printed. But I think the advice still applies.

It's possible that you do underexpose "just a bit" but as all the others have said, the proof is how well they print. As you seem to scan the negs, a tip would be to under-develop "just a bit", so that grain isn't over-pronounced. It's easy to adjust the contrast/levels in Photoshop or even when you scan (depending on your scanning software). In that case you probably should try to set the HP5 to 250 or so, which will lift the shadows from pitch black. It's common practice for (dare I say) most b/w photograpers to shoot HP5/TriX/TMY/... at 200-320. But this also depends on so many other variables, which deals with your style, equipment etc.
So, the test for you is whether you're pleased with how your shadows look.

//Björn

Kurt, if you are planning to develop for scanning, you might consider using a staining developer. Particularly with the efke 25. I like wd2d+ very much with the efkes. I think you will see some grain benefit, for a scanning workflow. I think Sandy King has written quite a bit on this.

Thanks again for the advice. I don't plan on sticking with the Efke. It's not bad, mind you, just that I like FP4+ better.

As for developers, I've tried Dixactol and it bombed. Not sure I can describe the results I got, other than it looked like hell. Maybe I'll give another staining developer a try. I do, however, like the economy and keeping properties of HC-110.

I did some testing a couple years ago and found that FP4+ worked best given my entire workflow w/ HC-110 and scanning. And since FP4+ is said to be and as I have found for myself, very forgiving of darkroom errors, that's probably best for me.

Oh, one more thing about the Efke. I just learned the hard way that the best filter to use is plain old b-flat yellow. Anything toward red, even the deep yellows, tends to block certain wavelengths.

Do you have a densitometer there? Maybe you could take a couple of readings.

Nope. Well, the software on my Epson 4180 has a little utility it calls a densitometer. I have no clue if its as good as the real thing. But let's assume it is, what should I look for?