Developing negs to print "normally" with grade 3 ??

Up to now i have allways thought that is was good practise to develope film to print "normally with grade 2. The other day i was suprrised to read a article by Mike Johnston in Black and White Photography, that suggest that, only when using VC papers, it is better to develope them to print normally with grade 3. That would mean less contrasty negatives. According to Johston this would make it possible to get better midtones on VC paper. Are there any "dark-room-authorities" that can support (or dismiss) this theory?

Thanks Jaap Jan

While I don't claim to be an authority, I will offer a comment on this.

I think that for a roll film photographer there is a lot to be said for his recommendations. I have always considered this from the aspect of apparent grain.

I am not sure that the aspect of enhanced midtone separation will be true in all cases. I lot depends on the sensitometric characteristics of the film and of the paper that one is using.

I don't know about better mid tones, but it has long been common practice to develop 35mm negatives to print on grade 3 paper. Doing so results in less grain than if the film had received normal development. It is not necessary to this with larger formats and they would not really benefit from this technique.

Unless the author of the article you read gave an explanation as to why his assertion is true then I would take it as suspect.

I'm no authority on anything so take what I say as pure uninformed opinion.

I have been processing my film for thinner negatives for many years. The reason I started doing it was because I've always used condenser enlargers which tend to pop up contrast. Back in the older days of Kodabromide, Medalist, Brovira and Portriga Rapid, I used grade 3 paper as my normal paper. Today I usually print on Ilford and Forte variable contrast papers without any filtration. I don't know if papers with inherently more contrast, better enlarger condensors and/or better enlarging lenses are the reason for this or not--it just works that way for me.

You can try it by cutting back development about 30% from what the manufacturer recommends.

I agree with all of the above, I develop my 35 and medium format to print grade 3, which for me is normal, I develop my 4X5 for grade 4 paper with a cold light or garde 3 VC with the condneser. The debate over grade 2 vs garde 3 has normal has been going on for years, do what works for you.

It is probably more accurate to consider the DR of the negative. On my condenser enlarger and with grade 2 paper, I need a negative density range of 1.25. For grade 3 paper, I need a dr of 1.0. I believe an "underdeveloped" negative will have less grain and in some ways, better resolution. However, a more fully developed negative will have greater tonal separation and greater accutance. Greater development would be necessary with diffusion head enlargers and preferred for larger formats that can take the hit on resolution and grain. Since I have not fully developed my skills with cute little film, I take advantage of longer development benefits in tonality and accutance. If I had to use 35mm, which can happen, I would likely make a flatter neg and use harder paper. I have nothing against VC paper, I have some for negatives that are outside the range of Grade 2 or 3, which I have. I am at a point though, where everything is usually perfect on grade 2. A densitometer and a step wedge will go a long way in perfecting your process.

Mike's idea is that processing affects the denser areas of the negative proportionally greater than the thinner areas, so changes to development changes the highlights. Changing paper grades has the greatest effect on the midtones and expands the local contrast in a place where it makes the greatest visual impression.

For those not concerned with grain (large format users), a good technique is to use a contrast reducing mask and print on a higher grade if you want to bring out the local contrast of the mid and lower midtones. Mike's a sharp guy and you'll not find anyone more dedicated to smaller format image clarity.