Expansion and Contraction with Thin Emulsion A Workflow Question

I'm a documentary photographer and I carry a Hasselblad kit. 500CM, SWC, 80mm, 150mm, and three A12 backs.

Back 1 is for general purpose photography with maximal exposure latitude and sharpness (FP4+ rated at 100ASA in Barry Thornton's two-bath recipe)
Back 2 is for handheld work or any time speed is a priority (HP5+ rated at 640ASA in XTOL 1:1).

Back 3 is the source of my question. I want a high-contrast option for when I'm photographing something with a short tonal range (signage, overcast scenes, etc). I considered loading FP4+ and giving N+1 or N+2 development in XTOL or Rodinal, but then I read in The Film Developing Cookbook 2E that zone system expansion and contraction are no longer ideal with modern thin-emulsion films. Is this true? Should I just make a very thin negative and sort it out in the scan or with multigrade paper? I've been experimenting with loading Pan F+ (rated at 32ASA in Rodinal 1:50) and might try N+1 expansion. Does this seem like a viable solution? Am I overthinking this whole thing? If so, how do you recommend I use my third back?

Based on my experience (mostly with Kodak and Foma films) N+1 still works fine with both cubic grain (FP4+ or Tri-X, etc.) and with tabular grain films (Delta and T-Max). It's going beyond that or trying to get significant contraction where you'll find there's less to be had. If you DO want to do an expansion beyond N+1, I'd recommend trying Fomapan 100; in my experience, it does N+2 very well, and while I haven't tried higher expansions with it, it looks so good at EI 400 that I wouldn't hesitate to at least shoot a roll and try it.

Another film that still expands fairly well is Kodak Double-X -- it's available in 120, but only from Cinestill; easier to get in 35 mm (including in bulk rolls spooled down from cine short ends). In my limited experience, it seems a lot like 1990s vintage Tri-X, or not even the 1970s version (the latter, especially, could do N+3 easily).

I'd also note that if you want to do individual frame contrast control, Fomapan 100 is available in 2x3 sheet size -- I don't recall if the Hasselblad sheet film back took standard 2x3 film holders or required cutting the film to square, however.

Dan Rainer said:

Should I just make a very thin negative and sort it out in the scan or with multigrade paper

Click to expand...

That would be fine, and it doesn't have to be particularly thin, either. If you want high contrast, just develop the heck out of the film. You can underexpose a little because lopping off part of the shadows won't be a problem anyway (provided you meter conservatively in case the shadows do matter somewhere). The main question is how much grain you can tolerate.

I think the remarks on N+2 not being feasible are maybe a little pessimistic and might be based on the perception that tonality suffers. But if you just need a lot of oomph for the kind of scenarios you mention, then I'd see no harm in developing the heck out of something.

I printed this last night; it's 35mm HP5+ at EI640; it's shot under failing late afternoon light and the SBR was only a few stops, if that. Developed the heck out of it (winging it really) and printed this at...no joke, grade 1 or thereabouts. Plenty of contrast in the negatives. I wouldn't be held back by what 'they say' about expansion being difficult with modern films.

If you need N+1, just develop normally and use darkroom/post contrast controls.

If you need N+2 or more, develop N+1 (approx. 20% longer than normal) and use darkroom/post contrast controls.

That works for me.

Doremus

Perhaps also intensify the negative with selenium.

Chuck_P said:

Perhaps also intensify the negative with selenium.

Click to expand...

That's one of those darkroom contrast controls

Doremus

While the T-Max films may lack traditional expansion capacity, the nature of the characteristic curve they offer - a really long straight section - plus the more flexible contrast controls now available at the printing stage, probably makes it unnecessary to employ as much expansion.

Doremus Scudder said:

That's one of those darkroom contrast controls

Doremus

Click to expand...

Yeah, was just being a little more specific.

Donald Qualls said:

Based on my experience (mostly with Kodak and Foma films) N+1 still works fine with both cubic grain (FP4+ or Tri-X, etc.) and with tabular grain films (Delta and T-Max). It's going beyond that or trying to get significant contraction where you'll find there's less to be had. If you DO want to do an expansion beyond N+1, I'd recommend trying Fomapan 100; in my experience, it does N+2 very well, and while I haven't tried higher expansions with it, it looks so good at EI 400 that I wouldn't hesitate to at least shoot a roll and try it.

Another film that still expands fairly well is Kodak Double-X -- it's available in 120, but only from Cinestill; easier to get in 35 mm (including in bulk rolls spooled down from cine short ends). In my limited experience, it seems a lot like 1990s vintage Tri-X, or not even the 1970s version (the latter, especially, could do N+3 easily).

I'd also note that if you want to do individual frame contrast control, Fomapan 100 is available in 2x3 sheet size -- I don't recall if the Hasselblad sheet film back took standard 2x3 film holders or required cutting the film to square, however.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the good advice! I've been toying with Arista 100 (rebadged Fomapan 100) for my 4x5 work. I haven't tried any expansion with it, but I'll do some experimentation and see how it goes.

Good to know about Double-X in 120. I had briefly considered Double-X, as I've heard it retains the older thick-emulsion structure and thus gains contrast much faster than speed; but I was unaware that it was made in 120. Big props to Cinestill for putting that option on the table.

koraks said:

I printed this last night; it's 35mm HP5+ at EI640; it's shot under failing late afternoon light and the SBR was only a few stops, if that. Developed the heck out of it (winging it really) and printed this at...no joke, grade 1 or thereabouts. Plenty of contrast in the negatives. I wouldn't be held back by what 'they say' about expansion being difficult with modern films.

Click to expand...

Looks very nice. Which developer did you use?

Chuck_P said:

Perhaps also intensify the negative with selenium.

Click to expand...

I have selenium that I use on paper. Eventually I want to experiment with selenium intensification on negatives, maybe I'll do some tests. Good to be reminded of that option.

Doremus Scudder said:

If you need N+1, just develop normally and use darkroom/post contrast controls.

If you need N+2 or more, develop N+1 (approx. 20% longer than normal) and use darkroom/post contrast controls.

That works for me.

Doremus

Click to expand...

This is similar to my current workflow. I was just concerned that I'm leaving something on the table by shooting flatter than desired and boosting contrast after the fact

Dan Rainer said:

Looks very nice. Which developer did you use?

Click to expand...

Thanks; this was Pyrocat HD, 1+1+100. Developed the heck out of the film, sort of by accident because I was playing with reduced agitation (1 cycle every 5 mins.).

Dan Rainer said:

I want a high-contrast option for when I'm photographing something with a short tonal range (signage, overcast scenes, etc).

Click to expand...

Use one of the Aviphot sourced films, like Rollei Superpan 200.

Chuck_P said:

Yeah, was just being a little more specific.

Click to expand...

I was just being cute

Dan Rainer said:

...
I have selenium that I use on paper. Eventually I want to experiment with selenium intensification on negatives, maybe I'll do some tests. Good to be reminded of that option.

This is similar to my current workflow. I was just concerned that I'm leaving something on the table by shooting flatter than desired and boosting contrast after the fact

Click to expand...

Selenium toning negatives, using a fairly strong (e.g., 1+2) solution of toner is a good way to get a bit more contrast out of a negative developed in non-staining developers. It's just one method of intensification. For stained negatives, where selenium toner removes stain, and for another general intensification method, the bleach-redevelop method works well. The idea is to bleach the negative in a rehalogenating bleach (potassium ferricyanide/potassium bromide) and then redevelop it in a staining developer like PMK or Pyrocat. The stain will add density and contrast. I've found that it intensifies low shadow values gratifyingly. There are other intensifiers as well, but they are more complicated and toxic.

As for only developing to N+1 as an upper limit. I find that more than that results in unpleasant grain, even with 4x5 negatives. Plus, many films don't respond to expanded development as well any more, adding a lot of base fog with extended development, which kind of defeats the purpose. I find that the contrast controls available with VC papers along with the above intensification methods and a bit of local bleaching when necessary yield better results.

Best,

Doremus