Enlarging overexposed underdeveloped negatives

[Nathan King]

I photographed a scene with an extremely large luminance range requiring less development. The negative came out great with detail across the entire scene. The problem is enlarging it. When I print to squeeze all of the tones on the paper the resulting image is very flat. When I increase contrast then I get highlights or shadows going pure white/black. Are there any enlarging tricks that will allow me to get both fully detailed prints AND more apparent contrast?

 

[Rick A]

You can try split contrast printing, and there's always burn and dodge techniques. Some times, you have to do a combination of all. I recommend you find a good comprehensive book on printing.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Can you post examples?

 

[snapguy]

good question

It is a good question but trying to boil 40 years of photo printing and thousands of reject prints into one small blurb is a bit much. You need to have some savvy person look at the neg and suggest where you go from there. Th negs might r

 

[cliveh]

There are several techniques you could try, but at the end of the day you need to treat the cause not the effect (sorry if this sounds a little harsh).

 

[ic-racer]

I photographed a scene with an extremely large luminance range requiring less development. The negative came out great with detail across the entire scene. The problem is enlarging it. When I print to squeeze all of the tones on the paper the resulting image is very flat. When I increase contrast then I get highlights or shadows going pure white/black. Are there any enlarging tricks that will allow me to get both fully detailed prints AND more apparent contrast?

Exactly! This is what you get when you print a very large luminance range negative. Around here people use the term "Local Contrast" to refer to the separation of individual parts of you image. So, although your overall image goes from paper black to paper white, the "Local Contrast" of the individual areas of the print are lacking in contrast. The historical method to deal with this is to print on a higher contrast paper and use extensive dodging and burning to bring the shadows and highlights back. It is not easy but doing this well is the mark of a great printer. Also, consider the use of reducer to bring out subtle values in the dark areas.

I actually went through a period a few years ago where I was trying to get AWAY from the traditional Ansel Adams style of increasing "Local Contrast." I acquired an appreciation of prints on the lower contrast grades without all the "Local Contrast" control manipulations.

 

[cliveh]

To me it doesn't seem like there is really a cause to treat. It's just a high contrast scene. There isn't a whole lot you can do that won't require some amount of printing work.

But you could decide at the taking stage which is more important to you, re highlights, mid-tones or shadows and expose accordingly.

 

[RPC]

The real problem here and with printing in general is the inability of paper to reproduce the dynamic range that can be recorded on film. Darkroom manipulation (burning, dodging, masking, reducers) is the only real way to get maximum shadow and highlight detail without sacrificing contrast.

 

[cliveh]

The real problem here and with printing in general is the inability of paper to reproduce the dynamic range that can be recorded on film. Darkroom manipulation (burning, dodging, masking, reducers) is the only real way to get maximum shadow and highlight detail without sacrificing contrast.

No, the real problem is here is being able to record on film the lighting ratio of the original scene.

 

[cliveh]

cliveh - the contrast has to go somewhere. There's no free lunch when the contrast in the scene is high. Whether you have a contrasty negative and print it on low contrast paper, or a low contrast negative to print on normal contrast paper, either way you've compressed the contrast of the original scene somewhere (on the film or in printing).

How do you compress the contrast of the original scene on film?

 

[cliveh]

The film can record the wide range, but developing to lower contrast will compress the resulting density range of the negative to better "fit" the scale of the paper. It usually isn't the entire answer though, especially if the photographer wants snappy "local contrast" in the print.

With all due respect Michael there are many scenes that have a lighting ratio far beyond what can be recorded on film.

 

[removed account4]

I photographed a scene with an extremely large luminance range requiring less development. The negative came out great with detail across the entire scene. The problem is enlarging it. When I print to squeeze all of the tones on the paper the resulting image is very flat. When I increase contrast then I get highlights or shadows going pure white/black. Are there any enlarging tricks that will allow me to get both fully detailed prints AND more apparent contrast?

hi nathan

sometimes negatives like that make you really decide what you want a print to look like.
as mentioned, there is some acrobatics you could do to attempt to pull the negative out onto the paper
but there are other things you can do too, you could interpret the negative in a way that might be different
than what you actually saw when you were there exposing it. sometimes interpretation makes a negative
look completely different than what was there, sometimes better, even ... and sometimes
worse than the flat print or acrobatics you did to split print change developers mid stream and attempt to
record the negative as reality. negatives are their own reality, making an exposure in itself interprets the scene
as clive suggested deciding what was most important in the scene while exposing it ...

have fun printing, while it might be a PITA to make the print the way you like it, in the end you will learn a lot about printing and interpreting whats on film.

john

 

[cliveh]

With digital we have High-dynamic-range imaging, but without using multiple negatives at different exposures I didn't think we had anything equivalent for film.

 

[cliveh]

We do! I'm no digital expert but as far as I know the dynamic range of a single digital exposure is quite a bit less than that of a general purpose film, hence the multiple exposure-HDR digital technique.

Yes, but that multiple exposure HDR digital technique far exceeds a single film exposure. Please note I'm not trying to be pro digital here, but film has limitations when exposed for a scene with a huge lighting ratio.

 

[MattKing]

To the OP:

One solution is to print the negative on to a transparency material, and then project that.

Otherwise, you need to make some decisions on what you want to emphasize in your print, and then use dodging, burning and selective contrast manipulation to bring that out.

One tip: don't ignore the power of dark shadows with just a hint of detail.

 

[Nathan King]

It appears I have quite a bit to think about. It's interesting, because I have never had such trouble coaxing my visualization onto a piece of paper!

 

[naeroscatu]

Recording the information is rarely the problem. It's getting it all onto the printing paper which poses the challenges. But it can be done. Burning/dodging, different types of masking techniques etc. Depends on how complicated the picture is.

Spot on. One time I got a satisfactory result on blown highlights by flashing the paper before exposing the negative. Tere is testing involved to get the right amount of flasing. It took me 4 hours of tests and tries to make a final print that accomodates a large contrast scene otherwise well captured on film.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Just try a higher contrast paper with lots of burning and dodging.

 

[Nathan King]

I do not have much experience dodging or burning beyond the odd shadow or highlight. It appears I need to bite the bullet and get a large box of RC paper to practice with.

 

[MattKing]

I do not have much experience dodging or burning beyond the odd shadow or highlight. It appears I need to bite the bullet and get a large box of RC paper to practice with.

5 x 7 (or 5 x 8) enlargements are your friends.

 

[David Allen]

I photographed a scene with an extremely large luminance range requiring less development. The negative came out great with detail across the entire scene. The problem is enlarging it. When I print to squeeze all of the tones on the paper the resulting image is very flat. When I increase contrast then I get highlights or shadows going pure white/black. Are there any enlarging tricks that will allow me to get both fully detailed prints AND more apparent contrast?

The simple question is were you trying to faithfully record the scene as it was or did you have an image in your mind of how you wanted the image to look like when it was made into a fine print?

If you are trying to get a faithful record of what the scene looks like then you have to contend with the peculiarities of the scene itself, the limits of the film, the limits of the paper and the limits of your printing ability.

If, however, you are trying to represent the scene how you imagined it then you are merely limited by your darkroom skills - sounds depressing but it is actually very liberating.

Why? - well then you can ignore all of the 'it should print on #2', it should have a dynamic range of XXX, the print should have a solid black and a pure white, etc. Just print it how you want it to look. If your idea was that you wanted contrasty dark shadows but with a full dynamic range with gently separated highlights then simple use a split printing technique. Do a test at #5 to get the shadows how you wanted them, then a test (including the #5 exposure) to get the highlights and use that.

It will definitely not be like the scene that you photographed but may well be very close to the scene's interpretation that you had in your head. Locallised dodging and burning will get you the the perfect solution.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de