It has been suggested on a previous thread regarding shooting urban night scapes that diluting the film developer will be of benefit, two bath developers are also an option, pmk and pyrocat- hd are also contenders. So can any one explain the advantages/ disadvantages of using these methods to lower contrast. Another method mentioned was to pre-flash the film, this idea sounds very promising, how is this done using med-format? Will a strong nd filter have to be used or can you get away with pointing the camera at a grey card for a second or two if your exposures are going to be over a minute long? All help much appreciated.
Dilute developer or two bath for compensating high contrast.
-
A
- Thread starter bogeyes
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton v1
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Pentax 6x7, non-MLU. Viewfinder light meter needs calibration
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Brett weston paul caponigro and fred picker Books
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Komura 35mm F2.8 plus Finder Set for Nikon Rangefinder Mount
- Started by davela
Forum statistics
A good place to begin to clarify what you mean by "contrast".
SCALE is generally the term to describe the brightness range you need to capture on the film. Bright lights and dark sky, or stage photography, or shooting in the desert are good examples a VERY long scale images.
CONTRAST is generally the term to describe the ability of the film to distinguish adjacent tones from one another: middle gray from dark gray, for example. Normal contrast = tonal relationship as we normally see it. LOW CONTRAST usually means rendering a scene as if it were seen on an overcast day' less contrast than normal.
The trick to photographing an urban landscape at night is to make the brights bright, the darks dark, and the middles... middle. That isn't as stupid as it sounds. It is like pouring 2 liters of wine into a 1 liter bottle. You can do it, you just have to decide what you're going to lose.
You can choose to COMPRESS the entire scene ( and lower the contrast uniformly across the scale ), COMPRESS the shadows ( lowering the contrast in the shadows, but rendering the rest of the scene with normal contrast ), COMPRESS the highlights, or COMPRESS the mid tones.
What you choose to compress determines the suitable technique.
If you have a vision in mind, we can probably find a good answer. Otherwise, it would take a book to answer your question. Good question, and a good book.
.
SCALE is generally the term to describe the brightness range you need to capture on the film. Bright lights and dark sky, or stage photography, or shooting in the desert are good examples a VERY long scale images.
CONTRAST is generally the term to describe the ability of the film to distinguish adjacent tones from one another: middle gray from dark gray, for example. Normal contrast = tonal relationship as we normally see it. LOW CONTRAST usually means rendering a scene as if it were seen on an overcast day' less contrast than normal.
The trick to photographing an urban landscape at night is to make the brights bright, the darks dark, and the middles... middle. That isn't as stupid as it sounds. It is like pouring 2 liters of wine into a 1 liter bottle. You can do it, you just have to decide what you're going to lose.
You can choose to COMPRESS the entire scene ( and lower the contrast uniformly across the scale ), COMPRESS the shadows ( lowering the contrast in the shadows, but rendering the rest of the scene with normal contrast ), COMPRESS the highlights, or COMPRESS the mid tones.
What you choose to compress determines the suitable technique.
If you have a vision in mind, we can probably find a good answer. Otherwise, it would take a book to answer your question. Good question, and a good book.
.
bogeyes said:
For night shots white might be better. Perhaps a reading
off the card will work.
Extreme contrast can be dealt with in the darkroom using the
Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique; or SLIMT.
I read that it is a quick and simple cure for too high
contrast negatives. Dan
Diluting the developer concentration, extending the development time and reducing agitation has a two fold benefit.
The highly sensitized areas of the film quickly exhaust the developer while the less sensitized areas of the film or darker areas continue to develop. Extending the time allows this technique to repeat itself over the extended development time. Effectively what happens is the shadow areas fully develop while the highlights are compressed significantly. Overall contrast is easily controlled while micro contrast is more difficult to predict.
For years I have sought out situations where this technique was used. Typically, I used Kodak HC 110 developer at a dilution of 1/2 oz. syrup to 90 ozs. water. 5 minute presoak, continuities agitation for the first minute and then only the first 15 sec. of each minute thereafter for between 15 and 20 minutes depending on the original scene contrast. To effect the proper micro contrast in the print I would design my negatives so they would reproduce using a harder contrast paper to maintain the micro contrast I wanted.
Semi-Stand and Minimal Agitation developing techniques can have a dramatic effect on micro contrast and still maintain a dramatic ability to compress scene contrast.
I authored several articles in View Camera Magazine earlier this year dealing with just this topic. If you dont have access to these publications you can e mail me at techinfo@steve-sherman.com and I will e mail you the articles I am speaking of.
Hope this helps
The highly sensitized areas of the film quickly exhaust the developer while the less sensitized areas of the film or darker areas continue to develop. Extending the time allows this technique to repeat itself over the extended development time. Effectively what happens is the shadow areas fully develop while the highlights are compressed significantly. Overall contrast is easily controlled while micro contrast is more difficult to predict.
For years I have sought out situations where this technique was used. Typically, I used Kodak HC 110 developer at a dilution of 1/2 oz. syrup to 90 ozs. water. 5 minute presoak, continuities agitation for the first minute and then only the first 15 sec. of each minute thereafter for between 15 and 20 minutes depending on the original scene contrast. To effect the proper micro contrast in the print I would design my negatives so they would reproduce using a harder contrast paper to maintain the micro contrast I wanted.
Semi-Stand and Minimal Agitation developing techniques can have a dramatic effect on micro contrast and still maintain a dramatic ability to compress scene contrast.
I authored several articles in View Camera Magazine earlier this year dealing with just this topic. If you dont have access to these publications you can e mail me at techinfo@steve-sherman.com and I will e mail you the articles I am speaking of.
Hope this helps
For what it's worth, I support Steve's suggestions.
Pre Exposure works nicely in daylight.
Shooting at night, I wonder what to use as a light source. Adding more gear is not good, adding a distracting step is not good. The best nightscapes I ever did were all in dark areas shooting into the brighter ones. Knowing a couple policemen who were fond of large format photography was handy as well. It's always nice to have help carrying gear, not to mention the ... company.
In my younger days, I used a Leica on a Tiltall tripod at night. It made a handy negotiating device on a couple occassions.
SLIMT is a fine technique, but demands some practise to gain the expertise needed to get repeatable results. It is, I think, overkill for night shooting.
Steve's methods are straightforward, and are no more than an evolution of technique most of us already have. Careful selection of fim, film developer, paper, and paper developer can give you a system that requires few fancy steps.
Kodak TMY has very attractive reciprocity failure characteristics. With XTOL or Paterson FX 39, you get full speed and an extremely long straight line that doesn't block highlights. With a good fiber paper, like Ilford MG, you can record a 12 stop range on normal contrast with a soft developer like Selectol Soft.
Here is an example of a straight Tri X neg in Rodinal ( 1+50 with reduced agitation ) following a path similar to Steve's. The JPG is a straight scan from a straight print on Ilford FBMG. The neg is holding a 14 stop scale, and printing all of it.
And TMY is MUCH better for this sort of thing.
.
Pre Exposure works nicely in daylight.
Shooting at night, I wonder what to use as a light source. Adding more gear is not good, adding a distracting step is not good. The best nightscapes I ever did were all in dark areas shooting into the brighter ones. Knowing a couple policemen who were fond of large format photography was handy as well. It's always nice to have help carrying gear, not to mention the ... company.
In my younger days, I used a Leica on a Tiltall tripod at night. It made a handy negotiating device on a couple occassions.
SLIMT is a fine technique, but demands some practise to gain the expertise needed to get repeatable results. It is, I think, overkill for night shooting.
Steve's methods are straightforward, and are no more than an evolution of technique most of us already have. Careful selection of fim, film developer, paper, and paper developer can give you a system that requires few fancy steps.
Kodak TMY has very attractive reciprocity failure characteristics. With XTOL or Paterson FX 39, you get full speed and an extremely long straight line that doesn't block highlights. With a good fiber paper, like Ilford MG, you can record a 12 stop range on normal contrast with a soft developer like Selectol Soft.
Here is an example of a straight Tri X neg in Rodinal ( 1+50 with reduced agitation ) following a path similar to Steve's. The JPG is a straight scan from a straight print on Ilford FBMG. The neg is holding a 14 stop scale, and printing all of it.
And TMY is MUCH better for this sort of thing.
.
blocking out hotspots
Whilst researching night photography, I came accross what seems to be a good idea. When photographing a night scene containing a bright source of light ie. a street lamp it may be possible to block off that hot spot using matt black card held at arms length in front of the lens. During the exposure the card is kept moving and is held in positon for approx half the time allocated. Obviously the exposure would have to be a long one, in effect you would be dodging the negative.
Whilst researching night photography, I came accross what seems to be a good idea. When photographing a night scene containing a bright source of light ie. a street lamp it may be possible to block off that hot spot using matt black card held at arms length in front of the lens. During the exposure the card is kept moving and is held in positon for approx half the time allocated. Obviously the exposure would have to be a long one, in effect you would be dodging the negative.
The current PT magazine has an article by Dick&Silvia regarding this subject precisely.
Ole
Moderator
lowellh said:
The problem with that approach is that it drops the micro- and "meso"contrast right down, and the prints easily look flat and lifeless as a result. Stand development tends to enhance microcontrast, reduce large-scale contrast, and leave the mesocontrast alone. That can give great, vibrant prints which I've never been able to achieve with a generally soft developer.
In really extreme cases I've used Windisch's compensating developer. It works better than anything else I've seen - for solar eclipse photography.
As Ole says, the low contrast developer would destroy any sense of micro contrast. Typically, with an approach like that one would have to print on a hard contrast paper to restore any sense of "normal" micro contrast.
Where as with a dilute developer the highlights never rise as far on the straight line as they would with normal strength developer. In addition, the shadows continue to develop to maximum density predicated on original exposure.
I truly believe that compensating development is more a product of developer dilution and agitation regime than type or characteristic developers.
Where as with a dilute developer the highlights never rise as far on the straight line as they would with normal strength developer. In addition, the shadows continue to develop to maximum density predicated on original exposure.
I truly believe that compensating development is more a product of developer dilution and agitation regime than type or characteristic developers.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |