Establishing a repeatable process.

Doremus Scudder · Nov 1, 2019

Vaughn said:
That is what always made me chuckle when people ask what development time one should give a film. It is not a cast-in-stone number...varies with the SBR and what process one is using to make prints.

Amen!

If I were a large-volume portrait photographer, I'd calibrate my entire system from lighting ratios through final print so that I knew that I'd get the result I want every time I pressed the shutter, assuming, of course, that I want the same result every time. The same goes for copy and product work. After getting the kinks worked out, one doesn't even have to have a meter; just set the strobes or lights at the predetermined value and go. Repeatability is great in these situations, but needs to be calibrated from beginning to end.

For those of us that work with natural subjects in various differing lighting conditions, knowing what to change in order to get the result one desires (or get close enough anyway) is key. If you can't control the lighting and SBR, then you have to adjust processing to compensate.

Best,

Doremus

KenS · Nov 1, 2019

Az Prospector said:
In over forty years spent in photography, I have heard a lot of different approaches to process. A lot of them begin with exposure of the camera negative. I have come to believe the more expedient and repeatable process must begin with the printing paper or print medium. Until we know the contrast range of the print we can not know the proper exposure and development of the camera negative.

What are your thoughts on this?

Expose for the highlights (white with texture) on ZVlll + 1/3 and develop for the 'low end' It was the 'way' recommended for
Kodak's Kodachrome.. if it works for 'them' why should it not work for you.. I've been using that for many years (for B/W sheet films) and I don't think I'll be changing in the future. You'll find it pretty damned close to an 'incident' light reading..well within 1/3 of an f-stop
Try it for yourself... I carry around a small piece of clean/white towel in a plastic bag.. from which I take a reading from the 'direction in which the lens is 'pointing...and have not yet found any reason to change.

Ken

Bill Burk · Nov 2, 2019

Az Prospector said:
I can expose and develop a negative to a density range of .75 and it will print quite easily on grade two paper. But what is the density range of a given grade two paper? Does it exhibit the same toe and shoulder characteristics as my chosen film? I have found that after many years of following the edicts of St Ansel while my prints were quite good they were not achieving the full characteristics of the materials I had chosen. It was only when I did the work of determining the reflection densities of my printing paper complete with the characteristic curve and then matching my negative exposure and development to the "scale" of the paper that my process allowed both a more satisfactory print and a repeatable process.

Wait 0.75 on Grade 2? That’s got to be a typo.

These are the two negatives that sealed my fate. It was the craziest short-circuit. A “throw it all out the window” revelation.

About 8 years ago I was making prints from summer vacation. I looked back over my prints and found myself pretty happy with all I had done.

Then it hit me. These two negatives were bears. I knew the Hearst Castle swimming pool was barely given enough exposure because they don’t allow tripods. I developed it as long as I could but my wife called me to say we were late to dinner with friends so I had to plunge it in the fixer before I really wanted to. It barely makes a good print on grade 3 Galerie.

The other negative obviously has my son carrying his pillow in bright sun. Developed normally, exposed generously. That bulletproof negative stretched the limits the other way. Just a tad of burning the texture in the pillow can be faintly seen in the grade 2 Galerie print.

At once I knew... those prints made me happy but I never wanted to have to deal with a thinner negative or a more contrasty negative. I call them my Upper Control Limit (UCL) and Lower Control Limit (LCL).

Done. Now to put it to numbers... 0.86 = LCL and 1.18 = UCL.

Aim for the middle, call it 1.00 and give a tolerance... I aim for density range of 1.00 but know I can deal with anything between these two limits.

That's quite a lot of tolerance. So when it comes to developing film. I figure I can make a 30% mistake and still not ruin the negative.

Ian Grant · Nov 2, 2019

KenS said:
Expose for the highlights (white with texture) on ZVlll + 1/3 and develop for the 'low end' It was the 'way' recommended for
Kodak's Kodachrome.. if it works for 'them' why should it not work for you.. I've been using that for many years (for B/W sheet films) and I don't think I'll be changing in the future. You'll find it pretty damned close to an 'incident' light reading..well within 1/3 of an f-stop
Try it for yourself... I carry around a small piece of clean/white towel in a plastic bag.. from which I take a reading from the 'direction in which the lens is 'pointing...and have not yet found any reason to change.

Ken

I don't know where you dragged that one from, Kodachrome used a fixed process so there was no chance of altering the process to control the shadows or low end as you call it. Yes it was useful to measure the highlights to ensure they wouldn't be blown out.

With B&W films it's only exposure that really controls shadow detail, and if needed development changes to control the highlights. That's Expose for the Shadows, Develop for the Highlights.

Ian

Doremus Scudder · Nov 2, 2019

Exposing for the shadows of negative film and the highlights for reversal film (e.g., Kodachrome) is really the same thing: basing your exposure on the least-dense area of the film. It's just that with reversal materials, the least-dense areas are the highlights and overexposure is what makes them less dense, exactly the opposite of negative film.

But definitely for negative film, and for the context of this thread: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights!

Doremus

removedacct1 · Nov 2, 2019

Rather than investing a lot of effort in making results "repeatable"*, I would much rather develop a skill set that allowed me to be FLEXIBLE: able to conjure good results from a variety of conditions - sometimes unpredictable ones - especially those that result in a less than ideal negative. There is much to be said for someone who can find magic in a poor negative, and make it manifest.

*an unrealistic goal, IMO.

Bill Burk · Nov 2, 2019

paulbarden I think you’re right. Flexibility is a great pursuit.

Az Prospector is looking at what the paper needs, and that can be an independent activity.

What I mean is that it’s a project you can undertake to find out what characteristics the negative needs to have to make an excellent print on that paper.

Then hopefully as you put together a system for yourself, you can plug that in.

I mentioned earlier that the standard system was geared to grade 2 paper (and so is the Zone System). Az Prospector asked about the curve of the paper. Paper curves have a classic S shape based a lot on the properties of silver. But the manufacturers have control over a lot of the shape, and they have shaped it so that the “tone reproduction” curve is as close to the “preferred” curve as possible.

So in a sense, great results are designed into our film and paper characteristics. I like to think “you can’t go wrong”.

Drew Wiley could tell you how to fit your exposure and processing to best take advantage. I tend to not look at my own work that critically. So I am not a good one to tell you how to make a perfect print. But I can explain how to get most of the way there.

Ian Grant · Nov 2, 2019

paulbarden said:
Rather than investing a lot of effort in making results "repeatable"*, I would much rather develop a skill set that allowed me to be FLEXIBLE: able to conjure good results from a variety of conditions - sometimes unpredictable ones - especially those that result in a less than ideal negative. There is much to be said for someone who can find magic in a poor negative, and make it manifest.

*an unrealistic goal, IMO.

The two go hand in hand. It takes very little time and effort to calibrate your best EI and development time fora film developer combination and that gives you the skill set and flexibility to cope. It give freedom to be creative knowing you can get the desired result.

It's such a realistic goal and so easy to achieve. Sure at times we can work to get reasonable images from poor negative, I used to do a lot of prints for other photographers and was quite adept at coping with poor negatives.

However the approach I've used for over 30 years is almost fool proof, very quick and easy in practice, and I can shoot confidently knowing what I'll achieve.

Ian

Az Prospector · Nov 3, 2019

Bill Burk said:
View attachment 233933

Wait 0.75 on Grade 2? That’s got to be a typo.

These are the two negatives that sealed my fate. It was the craziest short-circuit. A “throw it all out the window” revelation.

About 8 years ago I was making prints from summer vacation. I looked back over my prints and found myself pretty happy with all I had done.

Then it hit me. These two negatives were bears. I knew the Hearst Castle swimming pool was barely given enough exposure because they don’t allow tripods. I developed it as long as I could but my wife called me to say we were late to dinner with friends so I had to plunge it in the fixer before I really wanted to. It barely makes a good print on grade 3 Galerie.

The other negative obviously has my son carrying his pillow in bright sun. Developed normally, exposed generously. That bulletproof negative stretched the limits the other way. Just a tad of burning the texture in the pillow can be faintly seen in the grade 2 Galerie print.

At once I knew... those prints made me happy but I never wanted to have to deal with a thinner negative or a more contrasty negative. I call them my Upper Control Limit (UCL) and Lower Control Limit (LCL).

Done. Now to put it to numbers... 0.86 = LCL and 1.18 = UCL.

Aim for the middle, call it 1.00 and give a tolerance... I aim for density range of 1.00 but know I can deal with anything between these two limits.

That's quite a lot of tolerance. So when it comes to developing film. I figure I can make a 30% mistake and still not ruin the negative.

No typo,

Bill Burk said:
View attachment 233933

Wait 0.75 on Grade 2? That’s got to be a typo.

These are the two negatives that sealed my fate. It was the craziest short-circuit. A “throw it all out the window” revelation.

About 8 years ago I was making prints from summer vacation. I looked back over my prints and found myself pretty happy with all I had done.

Then it hit me. These two negatives were bears. I knew the Hearst Castle swimming pool was barely given enough exposure because they don’t allow tripods. I developed it as long as I could but my wife called me to say we were late to dinner with friends so I had to plunge it in the fixer before I really wanted to. It barely makes a good print on grade 3 Galerie.

The other negative obviously has my son carrying his pillow in bright sun. Developed normally, exposed generously. That bulletproof negative stretched the limits the other way. Just a tad of burning the texture in the pillow can be faintly seen in the grade 2 Galerie print.

At once I knew... those prints made me happy but I never wanted to have to deal with a thinner negative or a more contrasty negative. I call them my Upper Control Limit (UCL) and Lower Control Limit (LCL).

Done. Now to put it to numbers... 0.86 = LCL and 1.18 = UCL.

Aim for the middle, call it 1.00 and give a tolerance... I aim for density range of 1.00 but know I can deal with anything between these two limits.

That's quite a lot of tolerance. So when it comes to developing film. I figure I can make a 30% mistake and still not ruin the negative.

Bill Burk said:
View attachment 233933

Wait 0.75 on Grade 2? That’s got to be a typo.

These are the two negatives that sealed my fate. It was the craziest short-circuit. A “throw it all out the window” revelation.

About 8 years ago I was making prints from summer vacation. I looked back over my prints and found myself pretty happy with all I had done.

Then it hit me. These two negatives were bears. I knew the Hearst Castle swimming pool was barely given enough exposure because they don’t allow tripods. I developed it as long as I could but my wife called me to say we were late to dinner with friends so I had to plunge it in the fixer before I really wanted to. It barely makes a good print on grade 3 Galerie.

The other negative obviously has my son carrying his pillow in bright sun. Developed normally, exposed generously. That bulletproof negative stretched the limits the other way. Just a tad of burning the texture in the pillow can be faintly seen in the grade 2 Galerie print.

At once I knew... those prints made me happy but I never wanted to have to deal with a thinner negative or a more contrasty negative. I call them my Upper Control Limit (UCL) and
Lower Control Limit (LCL).

Done. Now to put it to numbers... 0.86 = LCL and 1.18 = UCL.

Aim for the middle, call it 1.00 and give a tolerance... I aim for density range of 1.00 but know I can deal with anything between these two limits.

That's quite a lot of tolerance. So when it comes to developing film. I figure I can make a 30% mistake and still not ruin the negative.

I intended to say. 75 will print on grade two. Will it match the scale of grade two? No, obviously not. That is why I have found the scale of the print medium is best determined in order to know the density range of the negative.

Not all papers exhibit the same characteristic curve or the density range.

Bill Burk said:
View attachment 233933

Wait 0.75 on Grade 2? That’s got to be a typo.

These are the two negatives that sealed my fate. It was the craziest short-circuit. A “throw it all out the window” revelation.

About 8 years ago I was making prints from summer vacation. I looked back over my prints and found myself pretty happy with all I had done.

Then it hit me. These two negatives were bears. I knew the Hearst Castle swimming pool was barely given enough exposure because they don’t allow tripods. I developed it as long as I could but my wife called me to say we were late to dinner with friends so I had to plunge it in the fixer before I really wanted to. It barely makes a good print on grade 3 Galerie.

The other negative obviously has my son carrying his pillow in bright sun. Developed normally, exposed generously. That bulletproof negative stretched the limits the other way. Just a tad of burning the texture in the pillow can be faintly seen in the grade 2 Galerie print.

At once I knew... those prints made me happy but I never wanted to have to deal with a thinner negative or a more contrasty negative. I call them my Upper Control Limit (UCL) and Lower Control Limit (LCL).

Done. Now to put it to numbers... 0.86 = LCL and 1.18 = UCL.

Aim for the middle, call it 1.00 and give a tolerance... I aim for density range of 1.00 but know I can deal with anything between these two limits.

That's quite a lot of tolerance. So when it comes to developing film. I figure I can make a 30% mistake and still not ruin the negative.

Az Prospector · Nov 3, 2019

KenS said:
Expose for the highlights (white with texture) on ZVlll + 1/3 and develop for the 'low end' It was the 'way' recommended for
Kodak's Kodachrome.. if it works for 'them' why should it not work for you.. I've been using that for many years (for B/W sheet films) and I don't think I'll be changing in the future. You'll find it pretty damned close to an 'incident' light reading..well within 1/3 of an f-stop
Try it for yourself... I carry around a small piece of clean/white towel in a plastic bag.. from which I take a reading from the 'direction in which the lens is 'pointing...and have not yet found any reason to change.

Ken

You have it backwards for BW negatives.

Az Prospector · Nov 3, 2019

Vaughn said:
That is what always made me chuckle when people ask what development time one should give a film. It is not a cast-in-stone number...varies with the SBR and what process one is using to make prints.

Agreed

removedacct1 · Nov 4, 2019

Ian Grant said:
The two go hand in hand. It takes very little time and effort to calibrate your best EI and development time fora film developer combination and that gives you the skill set and flexibility to cope. It give freedom to be creative knowing you can get the desired result.

It's such a realistic goal and so easy to achieve. Sure at times we can work to get reasonable images from poor negative, I used to do a lot of prints for other photographers and was quite adept at coping with poor negatives.

However the approach I've used for over 30 years is almost fool proof, very quick and easy in practice, and I can shoot confidently knowing what I'll achieve.

Ian

Hi Ian.
Thanks for this. I want to clarify something: in no way did I mean to suggest that I thought that photographers should not bother learning how to handle their materials and become familiar with their characteristics. On the contrary. I simply wanted to say that I believe craftsmanship and technical precision has its place, but its not the only road - its far too easy to get caught up in technical details and "making art" can become secondary: a condition I prefer to avoid. Know your materials and understand when and how you can break the rules in order to find your best expression of craft.

removed account4 · Nov 4, 2019

paulbarden said:
Hi Ian.
Thanks for this. I want to clarify something: in no way did I mean to suggest that I thought that photographers should not bother learning how to handle their materials and become familiar with their characteristics. On the contrary. I simply wanted to say that I believe craftsmanship and technical precision has its place, but its not the only road - its far too easy to get caught up in technical details and "making art" can become secondary: a condition I prefer to avoid. Know your materials and understand when and how you can break the rules in order to find your best expression of craft.

Prefectly stated !

Ian Grant · Nov 4, 2019

paulbarden said:
Hi Ian.
Thanks for this. I want to clarify something: in no way did I mean to suggest that I thought that photographers should not bother learning how to handle their materials and become familiar with their characteristics. On the contrary. I simply wanted to say that I believe craftsmanship and technical precision has its place, but its not the only road - its far too easy to get caught up in technical details and "making art" can become secondary: a condition I prefer to avoid. Know your materials and understand when and how you can break the rules in order to find your best expression of craft.

I have to profoundly disagree, you've assumed a premise that craft and technique can lead to "making art" becoming secondary.

It's the other way around, Of course some people do get obsessive about technique and craft, however the approach I've seen taught on workshops here in the UK (which comes from the US) is also taught on Photography Degree course and is simple and practical, easily learnt and put into practice in under 2 hours and most importantly works.

The mistake is to assume the need for exhaustive testing, using a densitometer etc, the simple practical approach is initially just a simple film and development test to match your film to the paper (or scan), I've seen it summed up with diagrams on one sheet of A4 paper.

Instead of "making art" secondary, just the opposite happens you have the ability of "making art" the priority.

Ian

Vaughn · Nov 4, 2019

And I will repeat my mantra -- creativity and craft are one. Different sides of the same coin (art). Ignore one or place the importance of one over the other, and art suffers.

removedacct1 · Nov 4, 2019

Ian Grant said:
I have to profoundly disagree, you've assumed a premise that craft and technique can lead to "making art" becoming secondary.
Instead of "making art" secondary, just the opposite happens you have the ability of "making art" the priority.

Ian

OK, I guess your goal is to make anything I say sound stupid and wrong, so I will shut the eff up now. Thank you for making a truly sh*tty day even worse.

Bill Burk · Nov 5, 2019

Blame it on daylight savings...

I pulled out a Kodak Papers book from 1950 and even it suggested that working by the numbers is more important for the amateur who does not work in the darkroom often enough to remember what kind of negative fits what paper.

I can’t figure out how 0.75 fits grade 2 - the old Kodak book says maybe grade 4. Az Prospector do you have an example? I once bought a print at a craft fair of the wind shelters on white sands beach... I think maybe that “practically all white” picture would be such a negative.

Az Prospector · Nov 5, 2019

Bill Burk said:
Blame it on daylight savings...

I pulled out a Kodak Papers book from 1950 and even it suggested that working by the numbers is more important for the amateur who does not work in the darkroom often enough to remember what kind of negative fits what paper.

I can’t figure out how 0.75 fits grade 2 - the old Kodak book says maybe grade 4. Az Prospector do you have an example? I once bought a print at a craft fair of the wind shelters on white sands beach... I think maybe that “practically all white” picture would be such a negative.

You apparently fail to understand my point... too constricted a negative density range will print on a longer scale print medium... it will not match the density range or characteristic curve of the print medium. It will not be an optimal print. That is why I have found that the best process for me has been to establish the characteristics of the print medium first and from there the negative exposure and development can be established.

Az Prospector · Nov 5, 2019

Vaughn said:
And I will repeat my mantra -- creativity and craft are one. Different sides of the same coin (art). Ignore one or place the importance of one over the other, and art suffers.

What is "art"? Who defines "art"?

Az Prospector · Nov 5, 2019

Ian Grant said:
I have to profoundly disagree, you've assumed a premise that craft and technique can lead to "making art" becoming secondary.

It's the other way around, Of course some people do get obsessive about technique and craft, however the approach I've seen taught on workshops here in the UK (which comes from the US) is also taught on Photography Degree course and is simple and practical, easily learnt and put into practice in under 2 hours and most importantly works.

The mistake is to assume the need for exhaustive testing, using a densitometer etc, the simple practical approach is initially just a simple film and development test to match your film to the paper (or scan), I've seen it summed up with diagrams on one sheet of A4 paper.

Instead of "making art" secondary, just the opposite happens you have the ability of "making art" the priority.

Ian

What is "art"? Who defines "art"? I have examined some of your images and while they appear to be passable they certainly do not meet any standard of "artistitic expression" in that there is an absolute lack of emotional content. Which brings up my question of your allusion to art being preminant.

Ian Grant · Nov 6, 2019

Az Prospector said:
What is "art"? Who defines "art"?

That is a question you need to ask yourself and then answer, and refrain from making disparaging remarks about other peoples images. You'll also note that I wasn't the one bringing the notion of art up in this thread.

You need to keep to the subject of your original post in this thread.

Ian

removed account4 · Nov 6, 2019

Az Prospector said:
What is "art"? Who defines "art"?

The public defines art and art is whatever it is .... and it has nothing to do with what you probably think it is.

good luck with your process !

removedacct1 · Nov 6, 2019

Az Prospector said:
What is "art"? Who defines "art"? I have examined some of your images and while they appear to be passable they certainly do not meet any standard of "artistitic expression" in that there is an absolute lack of emotional content.

If you're going to make remarks like that, you better provide examples of your own work for judging.

Vaughn · Nov 6, 2019

Az Prospector said:
What is "art"? Who defines "art"?

Check out previous threads on the subject...

When I was teaching myself carbon printing from a magazine article (before internet forums) and having never seen anyone else's carbon print, I had to determine for myself what a carbon print could look like. I saw a hint of relief in my wet prints that would disappear when the gelatin dried and shrunk, so I pushed the process in a direction that would keep the relief when dry. It took me two years, changing negative characteristics, pigment concentration of the printing material (carbon tissue), and the type of light (including SBR) I was photographing. And all along this path, the main driving force was to find a way to best express the light I experienced.

I know it is not the only path, but it has been mine so far. My path is at my feet and it ends somewhere in the future. It does not start with camera, nor with a negative, and does not end with a print. But mornings starts well with a mug of tea.

YMMD

BrianShaw · Nov 6, 2019

Sigh... here we go again. Eating our own. Analogue cannibalism.

Establishing a repeatable process.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency