Fresh from the darkroom.

480sparky · Oct 13, 2015

Spent half an hour in Ye Olde-Fashioned Darkroom tonight, making a wet print of one of the negatives from last weekend's photo outing with the Shen Hao.

I was getting way too much contrast shooting Ilford Delta 100 at factory specs, so I dropped it to ISO 50 and cut developing from 12:00 to 9:30. Now I'm seeing much better mid-tones.

Data for this image:
Camera: Shen Hao HZX45 IIA
Lens: Caltar II-S 210mm/5.6
Film: Ilford Delta 100
Shot at: N-1
13s at f/16
Lighting was an open garage door to left and Nikon Speedlight SB600 fired from right at ¼ power about 12 times.
Processing: Ilford DD-X @1+4, 68°F, 9m30s, 60s agitation
Printed with: Beseler 45MXT, Nikkor 135/5.6 at f/22 for 18s on Ilford Multigrade (no filter)
Developed in Ilford Multrigrade Developer 60s.

Carriage · Oct 13, 2015

Looks good. Why did you decide to pull process rather than using a contrast filter of the desired contrast?

480sparky · Oct 13, 2015

Filters add contrast. I was getting too much from the film without any.

MattKing · Oct 13, 2015

480sparky said:
Filters add contrast. I was getting too much from the film without any.

Enlarging contrast filters are used to choose the desired contrast in the print - as often to reduce it as to increase it.

Also, "N-1" usually refers to your development choice, not an exposure choice. And is generally used to deal with a subject with a large subject brightness range, rather than an overly contrasty film.

Usually when I want to adjust my contrast, I adjust development first without adjusting exposure. What led you to change the exposure as well?

By the way - looks like a nice print!

480sparky · Oct 13, 2015

MattKing said:
Enlarging contrast filters are also used to reduce contrast in the print.

Already tried that... and still got too much contrast for my taste.

Carriage · Oct 13, 2015

I think (I may well be wrong) that the number 2 filter is the same contrast as no filter. I think you still use it as it maintains the same exposure as grades 3 and lower.

EDIT: Makes sense.

MattKing · Oct 14, 2015

480sparky said:
Already tried that... and still got too much contrast for my taste.

Thanks for the clarification. From your earlier post I wasn't sure you knew you had that option.

If you are getting unusually high contrast from a film like Delta 100, it might be a good idea to check your thermometer.

480sparky · Oct 14, 2015

MattKing said:
..........Also, "N-1" usually refers to your development choice, not an exposure choice. ...........

They're a matched set to me. N-1 development is done as a result of an exposure choice, and both were done as a result of my experience with the film & developing results.

If I had exposed at N+1, my development would be 14min.

480sparky · Oct 14, 2015

MattKing said:
Thanks for the clarification. From your earlier post I wasn't sure you knew you had that option.

If you are getting unusually high contrast from a film like Delta 100, it might be a good idea to check your thermometer.

I have three.... they're within 2° of each other.

And just for S&G, I checked two against my Fluke 289. The Weston dial reads 70.5, the mercury reads 72 and the Fluke reads 71.5.

MattKing · Oct 14, 2015

480sparky said:
They're a matched set to me. N-1 development is done as a result of an exposure choice, and both were done as a result of my experience with the film & developing results.

If I had exposed at N+1, my development would be 14min.

Yours is an unusual approach, making an unusual use of the "N-1" nomenclature.

If your approach works for you - go for it!

You may encounter others though who are confused by your use of that "N-1".

480sparky · Oct 14, 2015

MattKing said:
Yours is an unusual approach, making an unusual use of the "N-1" nomenclature.

If your approach works for you - go for it!

You may encounter others though who are confused by your use of that "N-1".

Seems to me it means you either overexpose the film and underdevelop it (N-, aka pull processing), or underexpose the film and overdevelop it (N+, aka pus processing). The former reduces contrast, the latter increases it.

At least that's what I got from reading Ansul's books.

MattKing · Oct 14, 2015

480sparky said:
Seems to me it means you either overexpose the film and underdevelop it (N-, aka pull processing), or underexpose the film and overdevelop it (N+, aka pus processing). The former reduces contrast, the latter increases it.

At least that's what I got from reading Ansul's books.

Generally, one uses development adjustments - N- for contraction, and N+ for expansion - to adjust the contrast of the film in order to fit the scene's subject brightness range to the response of your paper.

Sometimes, but not always, the combination of the distribution of tones in the scene and the changes in the development require you to change the exposure as well. I've never encountered anyone before though who used the N- or N+ nomenclature to refer as well to that change in exposure.

I'll let the people who use the full Zone system more than me correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it is necessary or advisable to increase or decrease exposure each and every time you use expansion or contraction development controls - particularly with modern materials.

dpurdy · Oct 14, 2015

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. If exposing for the shadows means too much exposure for the highlights you do a minus development to keep the highlight density down. Minus whatever number is a development calculation.

MattKing · Oct 14, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
I believe I've been sucked in by a thread headline intimating someone's excitement about a print session, was actually a personal film-speed rating discussion. Someone who has a seeming revelation that departs from the manufacturer's rating with a full emulsion speed developer. In other words, normal developing chemical.
No qualification as to meter or shutter accuracy was stated. Consequently the poster's film speed rating is suspect. Even battery condition in the meter is questionable, and is by far the weakest link in the chain. Remember, we live in an era of the silver battery and not the mercury. The silvers are "hot" when fresh and run down by as much as a whole stop in short order. Another flaw or inaccuracy can either be equalizing or additive. Curiously, flaws always seem to be additive and can be very nasty gremlins to catch in the act as to be singled out.

I don't think we are talking about film speed.

480sparky has produced a really nice print. The way he got to it might be unusual, or maybe the process was not unusual, but the description of that process was.

I commented, because parts of what were posted confused me. A discussion ensued, and some differing understandings were explored. I know I often learn from those sorts of discussions. Possibly the discussion will benefit 480sparky as well. Hope so.

Jerevan · Oct 14, 2015

I find the photograph really nice and inspiring, the technical details accurate, and the rest of the waffle mildly amusing, like little white clouds on a bright blue sky.

Doremus Scudder · Oct 14, 2015

MattKing said:
Yours is an unusual approach, making an unusual use of the "N-1" nomenclature.

If your approach works for you - go for it! You may encounter others though who are confused by your use of that "N-1".

MattKing said:
Generally, one uses development adjustments - N- for contraction, and N+ for expansion - to adjust the contrast of the film in order to fit the scene's subject brightness range to the response of your paper.

Sometimes, but not always, the combination of the distribution of tones in the scene and the changes in the development require you to change the exposure as well. I've never encountered anyone before though who used the N- or N+ nomenclature to refer as well to that change in exposure.

I'll let the people who use the full Zone system more than me correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it is necessary or advisable to increase or decrease exposure each and every time you use expansion or contraction development controls - particularly with modern materials.

Actually, adjusting film speed to the development time is classic Zone System practice.

Increasing development boosts film speed somewhat, reducing it does the opposite. Exactly how much should be a part of your Zone System calibrations when you're doing your film testing. EI at normal is not going to be the same for N+1 or N-1 (not to mention N+2 or N-2!). That said, an entire stop extra exposure for N-1 is not likely necessary. However, since it errs on the side of overexposure, the resulting negative, especially if large format, is immanently printable. Care would have to be taken with N+1, however, since giving a full stop less might result in underexposure.

FWIW, I have different effective film speeds for each of the 4-5 development schemes I use for each film I use. I simply figure these as an "exposure compensation" compared to normal when indicating other than N development.

As an aside, the majority of ZS practitioners use slower than box speed (often by about half) and less than recommended development, so Sparky is right in the ballpark with most.

Best,

Doremus

480sparky · Oct 14, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
I believe I've been sucked in by a thread headline intimating someone's excitement about a print session, was actually a personal film-speed rating discussion. Someone who has a seeming revelation that departs from the manufacturer's rating with a full emulsion speed developer. In other words, normal developing chemical.
No qualification as to meter or shutter accuracy was stated. Consequently the poster's film speed rating is suspect. Even battery condition in the meter is questionable, and is by far the weakest link in the chain. Remember, we live in an era of the silver battery and not the mercury. The silvers are "hot" when fresh and run down by as much as a whole stop in short order. Another flaw or inaccuracy can either be equalizing or additive. Curiously, flaws always seem to be additive and can be very nasty gremlins to catch in the act as to be singled out.

Sorry to disappoint you. I didn't realize I must create posts so the guru at the top of the mountain can learn something. Feel free to add me to your Ignore List so you'll never waste your time again.

Since you bring it up, testing shutter speeds is something I do on all my shutters.... including my DSLRs (don't ask how I do it....). I do this on a regular basis, and maintain a spreadsheet so I can benchmark any ongoing issues with them.

As a professional electrician, I think I'm qualified to check the normal, run-of-the-mill, plain-Jane AA batteries in my meter (despite the fact it has a built-in test and will display a low-battery icon on the display when it detects such).

480sparky · Oct 14, 2015

MattKing said:
I don't think we are talking about film speed.

480sparky has produced a really nice print. The way he got to it might be unusual, or maybe the process was not unusual, but the description of that process was.

I commented, because parts of what were posted confused me. A discussion ensued, and some differing understandings were explored. I know I often learn from those sorts of discussions. Possibly the discussion will benefit 480sparky as well. Hope so.

In some sense, it IS about ISO. Inasmuch as I'm characterizing my choice of film, developers and paper to produce an image that will (hopefully) replicate what my feeble eyeballs and half-dead brain saw when I clicked the (speed-accurate) shutter. If rating the film at ISO 50 instead of 100 is what I need to do, then so be it. I may find 64 or 80 works better. Or perhaps 40, 32 or even *gasp* 25.

The following is aimed at everyone reading this post: I look at film photography much like a chef looks at a recipe. There's no law that says the chef MUST make the dish strictly in accordance with that little 3x5 card or clipping from a magazine or what's shown on a web site. The chef is free to change, add or delete ingredients, alter cook times & temperatures, and even how the final result is presented on the platter. It may not look, smell or taste like the original recipe, but if that's what the chef wants to present to the customer, that's perfectly fine.

And that's all I'm doing..... taking a basic recipe (the one recommended by Ilford for that film and developer), and I'm adjusting the ingredients, oven and timer to suit my vision. The goal is not to quibble about technical details, but to produce a print that is as close to what I want as possible. I only post the technical details in hopes that someone else may garner a grain of knowledge from my experience.

If I want to take a 2-week vacation and drive through Glacier National Park, I don't need a dozen suggestions about flying to Bermuda, a cruise to Alaska or taking Amtrak through the American Southwest.

Rant over. I know return you to your regular forum.

jimjm · Oct 14, 2015

Nice print there Sparky. I can understand your concern about controlling contrast, especially for the background where the darker areas could get blocked-up.

I would probably have just tried printing at a lower grade, which would have resulted in a muddy print and then I would have just given up and gone for a beer...:munch:

You've got me thinking about getting my Shen-Hao out of the closet and firing it up again. Have you been happy with that Caltar 210 lens? I have the 240/5.6, but it's a bit of a beast (covers 8x10) so I haven't used it much yet as I'm not about to lug it outside for any landscape shooting.

480sparky · Oct 14, 2015

jimjm said:
..... Have you been happy with that Caltar 210 lens? I have the 240/5.6, but it's a bit of a beast (covers 8x10) so I haven't used it much yet as I'm not about to lug it outside for any landscape shooting.

I really don't have anything else in that FL to compare it to. I have a pair of Nikkors (90 and 150mm) that seem to be champs, but I find I'm using the 210 more than any of the others.

My whole kit fits into a backpack, so 'lugging' it around isn't much of an issue.

Mick Fagan · Oct 14, 2015

I have followed this thread with interest from the start, what I would like to see, if possible that is, is a dry version of the one under the liquid in the dish.

Mick.

Sirius Glass · Oct 14, 2015

Darkroom is good. Computer is bad. Keep life simple.

480sparky · Oct 14, 2015

Mick Fagan said:
I have followed this thread with interest from the start, what I would like to see, if possible that is, is a dry version of the one under the liquid in the dish.

Mick.

You mean a scan of the print? Easy Peasy.

Doremus Scudder · Oct 15, 2015

jimjm said:
... Have you been happy with that Caltar 210 lens? I have the 240/5.6, but it's a bit of a beast (covers 8x10) so I haven't used it much yet as I'm not about to lug it outside for any landscape shooting.

Caltar lenses were Calumet's house brand (maybe still?). The 210s were rebranded Schneider or Rodenstock lenses depending on the time they were made. I believe the II-S that the OP used is a Schneider Symmar-S in sheep's clothing.

Best,

Doremus

Mick Fagan · Oct 15, 2015

480sparky said:
You mean a scan of the print? Easy Peasy.

Many thanks for that, looks good. I can see a highlight on the right of the left jack, presumably from the flashes. Great idea and seems to have worked well.

If you are thinking of doing more stuff like that, which is product photography. Another way to reduce contrast is to work your light levels to about three stops from shadow to highlight. Or four stops tops, you may be quite amazed at how easy it is to have a quite dynamic print, that will hold good shadow and highlight detail, but also hold mid tones remarkably well.

The hardest thing to shoot in B&W that I have done, was to shoot a stack of white fluffy towels interspersed with other coloured towels for print advertisements. Now I did have access to pretty good studio lighting, but the fact is, by restricting your overall light to a maximum of 1½ stops below and 1½ stops above your mid tone the negatives practically print themselves. To achieve this, one often has to tone down the highlight with a black reflector and lift the shadow with white reflector. Actually one usually used about 10-12 reflectors, most of them no bigger than 20cm x 30cm, with many being much smaller than that.

This link goes to some towels, look at the mixed colour stack and see just how much detail one can see in all the coloured ones, as well as the white ones. I know that that would have been done electronically, but we did stuff like that daily on film in the eighties and had results like that. I would lay money that the coloured towels were not just lit with a soft box and nothing else. The darker ones would be having small reflectors to lift them, while lighter ones would have a dark reflector to bring them down.

http://www.sheridan.com.au/luxury-r...t6gjdEu3uMNc4RvcHFT6YRoCf1rw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

This is an extreme example I'm leading you to, but the game plan remains the same, reduce your f stop range to around four stops max of what you wish to print on the negative, and you should be laughing. I do understand you cannot always do this, but thinking about it may help.

Whatever you do do, keep it up, those jacks are looking good.

Mick.

Fresh from the darkroom.

480sparky

Carriage

480sparky

MattKing

Moderator

480sparky

Carriage

MattKing

Moderator

480sparky

480sparky

MattKing

Moderator

480sparky

MattKing

Moderator

dpurdy

MattKing

Moderator

Jerevan

Doremus Scudder

480sparky

480sparky

jimjm

480sparky

Mick Fagan

Sirius Glass

480sparky

Doremus Scudder

Mick Fagan

Fresh from the darkroom.

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency