Controlling contrast with Pan-F

[Ole]

The only way i can think of that might possibly bring that sirt of contrast under control is Windisch' Compemsating Pyrocatechin. I have tried it with the late lamented APX 100 in sheet film - and it really does work. But it will look flat.

 

[Donald Miller]

Daniel,

I have made many exposures in which that sort of contrast range was contained using film pre exposure. Sometimes one needs to pre-expose at a Zone IV pre-exposure to non-image bearing light. Followed by an image bearing light exposure placing the highlights on Zone VIII. This procedure will provide you the contraction in negative density range better then any developer compensation because it will maintain highlight tonal separation.

 

[Flotsam]

Donald, If you have naturally lit photos that contain good detail both inside the building, several feet from the window and also outdoors, through the window. I'd love to see them and hear your methods.

(I know that sometimes it is difficult to tell on the internet, but I am not trying to be sarcastic in the above paragraph. I just haven't tried it and I'm wondering how much can be accomplished with non-image forming light)

 

[fparnold]

In "The Negative", AA mentions Ole's suggestion of pyrocatechin, which he uses to show the filament and lettering on a lit light-bulb in a reflector, and the old-fashioned water-bath using Amidol (although an example with FG-7 is shown; I don't know which is harder to find these days). On page 229 he discusses divided devlopment, with an example that's in the same basic category as yours, using D23 + sodium carbonate 1%.

However, the most interesting suggestion is that you could try the old POTA formula for taming Tech-Pan, or see if you can still get some Technidol-LC.

Personally, I'd start with POTA, and work backwards as the first two were developed for the older thick-emulsion films.

 

[dancqu]

Lots of exposure and -, -, -, -, development. If that Diafine
worked well it would flop with more normal contrasty scenes.
FX-1 would be a better choice for that thin
already fine grain film. Dan

 

[Flotsam]

(although an example with FG-7 is shown; I don't know which is harder to find these days.

I still have FG-7 on my shelf. Use it with Tri-X (w/SS) and Pan F.

What did they use to shoot and develop those H-Bomb tests in the 50s? Now _they_ could handle brightess range. Was that Dr. Edgerton?

 

[Donald Miller]

Neal,

This is an image that I made back in 1988 under those conditions and using the procedures that I have mentioned. Please understand that the JPEG doesn't convey the actual print. It does contain full detail in all areas of the print. I have others just don't have them scanned in the computer at the moment. Hope that this gives you what you are looking for.

 

[john_s]

Daniel,
Other then the mention that Ansel Adams has in his book "The Negative", I am not aware of any other sources addressing pre-exposure of film. His description does not go into a great deal of detail, in my opinion. Having used this process repeatedly over many years, I can assure you that it will solve your problem. Please send me an email if you lack understanding and I will cover this in detail for you.

There is an example in Barry Thornton's beautiful book "Elements".

 

[Neal]

Dear Donald,

I enjoyed the photo. A particularly pleasing composition (as well as technical execution). While I wasn't the one looking for the example, I appreciate that you posted it for me.

All that said, there are times when a fellow just needs a few basic darkroom techniques, particularly once the negative is in hand. I'm not sure why you're so dead set against unsharp masking, but based on the situation that was presented in the initial post, I still think it a very reasonable option and it's easy to do. Certainly pre-exposure is a wonderful method, but not every situation, even those with a larger than normal range, require it.

 

[Donald Miller]

Dear Donald,

I enjoyed the photo. A particularly pleasing composition (as well as technical execution). While I wasn't the one looking for the example, I appreciate that you posted it for me.

All that said, there are times when a fellow just needs a few basic darkroom techniques, particularly once the negative is in hand. I'm not sure why you're so dead set against unsharp masking, but based on the situation that was presented in the initial post, I still think it a very reasonable option and it's easy to do. Certainly pre-exposure is a wonderful method, but not every situation, even those with a larger than normal range, require it.

Neal,

Thanks for your kind comments. I posted the image for Neal Williams (Flotsam) per his request.

I am not dead set against unsharp masking...in fact a form of unsharp masking called a contrast reduction mask will suffice in some situations. I have found that a conventional unsharp mask will best work with a peak density of .35 (that seems to also be what Howard Bond has found)...perhaps a contrast reduction mask could go as high as .45. That still amounts to about a zone and one third contraction...altered development will give about a maximum of two zones of contraction before the highlights get really congested and lack separation. So between the two one could hopefully effect a total of N minus three and one third. Some of these interior shots with brightly lit exterior openings will need N minus five or six in order to hold the film density on paper.

Again as I said at the outset, these are all tools that can afford different effects. It is a matter of knowing when and how to use the proper tool for a given desired result.

Donald Miller

 

[Flotsam]

Yeah Neal, You're not the only one with that damnably mis-spellable name

Donald, I remember when you posted that in the gallery. Not only a wonderful shot but a great illustration of capturing an extended tonal range. How much pre-exposure can you give it before it juast greys the frame without helping the highlights?

 

[Donald Miller]

Yeah Neal, You're not the only one with that damnably mis-spellable name

Donald, I remember when you posted that in the gallery. Not only a wonderful shot but a great illustration of capturing an extended tonal range. How much pre-exposure can you give it before it juast greys the frame without helping the highlights?

Neal,

The maximum that I have given is the equivalent of a Zone IV pre-exposure to non image bearing light. More normally I work with a Zone II or III pre-exposure value. It all depends on the amount of compression that one needs.

I don't understand your comment about graying the frame and helping the highlights. What we do in pre-exposure is that we add proportionally more exposure to the shadow values and then we meter the highlights to place them at a Zone VIII valuation. Thus we are actually exposing the highlights for less then we would in a single conventional exposure.

A typical single exposure would place the shadows at a zone III or IV and the high lights in a SBR of 12 would fall on Zone XV or XVI. That is why the highlight regions are blown out.

In pre-exposure we are adding a Zone III or IV pre-exposure to the low values...with little proportional effect on the highlights and then we expose the highlights at Zone VIII. That will allow the highlights to print properly and the shadows will have the exposure that we want.

The compression occurs in the shadow regions rather then in the highlight regions as in the case of altered development. I believe that normal human visual perception is more accepting of shadow compression then it is of highlight compression. We expect to see shadows be less well defined then we do highlights.

Hope that this helps.

 

[Flotsam]

Of course you are right. I have only flashed paper so my thinking was turned bass ackwards.

It sounds like a good technique for 35mm where you may shoot both normal and contrasty scenes on a single roll and have to develop them all the same.

 

[Neal]

Thanks for the note Donald. We're on the same page now.<g>

Neal

 

[Lee Shively]

I only scanned through the responses to the original question so, if this is no longer pertinent, please just disregard.

I've been using Pan F since before the "plus". Back in the days when I started using it, I ordered technical information from Ilford and I still use the processing information they gave back in the early 1970's. Ilford gave two processing times for Pan F. One was for a Gamma of 0.55 and one was for a Gamma of 0.70. I've always used the times for 0.55 and I've never had many problems controlling contrast with Pan F.

What has worked for me was Perceptol (or Microdol-X) 1:1 for 10 1/2 minutes @ 68 degrees F. For ID-11 (D76) 1:1 7 minutes @ 68 degrees...at 1:3 for 11 1/2 minutes. I use an exposure index of 32 instead of 50.

This procedure has always worked well for me under normal circumstances. In some extreme contrast circumstances, I've found it helpful to do an "after soak" in plain water for a couple of minutes before going to the stop bath. Your results may be different from mine, of course.

 

[glbeas]

I just now found this thread after being out the weekend. The only time I've used Pan F with much success in controlling the contrast was with Rodinal 1:100 stand developed, I think for 20 minutes. The scenes I shot were not extremely high contrast (white truck, shadows underneath) and had good detail all through the neg. Question is, how far will stand development go in compressing the brightness range onto the film? This and the non image flash seems the most "low tech" techniques available to restrain the contrast on film I've seen so far unless you count using stuff like technidol developer, which is another beast entirely.

 

[donbga]

Expo Disc

One unique gizmo worth mentioning here in this tread is the Expo Disc. It can make pre-flashing film very easy and predictable. For more info goto

Dead Link Removed

Don Bryant

 

[Flotsam]

Don, I almost mentioned disk that I vaguely remembered that let you take incident reading with your SLR. I wonder if this is what I was thinking of.

 

[donbga]

Don, I almost mentioned disk that I vaguely remembered that let you take incident reading with your SLR. I wonder if this is what I was thinking of.

Yes, the Expo Disc used to be named the Wallace Expo Disc. One of it's uses is to allow a TTL in camera meter to make incident readings.

I don't own one but have often thought of purchasing it simply for the ability to pre-flash film.

Don Bryant

 

[Donald Miller]

For $109.00 for one of these, I think that I will stay with my $4.00-- 3 inch square of 1/8 inch opaque acrylic...however if you have an extra $105.00 then send it to me...

 

[bobfowler]

One unique gizmo worth mentioning here in this tread is the Expo Disc. It can make pre-flashing film very easy and predictable. For more info goto

Dead Link Removed

Don Bryant

WHAT!?!?!?

$80.00 for a piece of white plastic? (much more if you need one larger than 58mm) Are they on crack?

No, I can think of far more economical ways to do this...

 

[donbga]

For $109.00 for one of these, I think that I will stay with my $4.00-- 3 inch square of 1/8 inch opaque acrylic...however if you have an extra $105.00 then send it to me...

That's why I don't own one. They used to be considerably cheaper. But I guess there is merit having something precisely made, simple and predictable to use.

I'll send you $4.00 for your opaque acrylic.

Don

 

[Lee L]

ExpoDisc

I got a couple of ExpoDiscs years ago when they were cheaper. They are more than meets the eye, as they are color balanced within a Kodak CC unit or two, have a closely calibrated density to match an 18% gray card when used for incident metering, and have a diamond diffusion pattern on the outside and smooth plastic on the inside to prevent hot spots and evenly illuminate the interior surface. They are also machined to a diameter that is a slip/grip fit for a given filter thread size. Are they over-priced? Perhaps. But they are not the equivalent of a random piece of diffusion plastic. AFAIK, the price went up after the inventor died and family members took over the business.

Lee

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I have yet to find a scene which will not print on VC paper with minimum fuss when pyrocat or similar devs are used. I rarely reduce dev time, only increase it for flat scenes. I have had scenes with 14 stops print fine on VC paper. You just cannot blow highlights. I did one roll in Dixactol and it seemed to stain really well, much more like older emulsions (Hp5 etc) than FP4/apx100/tmax.