Got too contrasty 4x5 negative

[Laci Toth]

I just developed my first 4x5 sheet and I was quite happy even the outcome was this negative.
Previously I've tested this pinhole (Ilford Obscura) with paper negatives and the outcome was disastrous.
Those were shot on a sunny day in a garden and the sunny side of the garden was plain white while the shades were pitch-black.
This was shot on an overcast day within a short time when the sun was full-on.
I took another one on that very day when it was cloudy and the contrast is way better.
Why could this happen?
It’s a Fomapan 100. Should I shot it at less iso despite the given? It seems like it's not underexposed but rather a contrast issue.
I developed it in trays, presoaked it for a minute. It was Rodinal 1:50 at 20 celsius for 8 minutes. As far as I know Rodinal even pulls back the film speed.
I'm also thinking of taking a double ‘o’ yellow filter from the multigrade set which kind of helped the paper negatives but as this case is far not serious it could improve it a lot. I'm wondering though if using this filter would soften the image due to the lower contrast.

 

[mark]

On my monitor I see details everywhere including the deep shadows. Looks good for a first shot.

This is where you learn about development time. You really have no control over hcontrast in the scene itself without the aid of filters. I've been told blue lowers contrast but I will be honest I have never used it. Yellow will increase contrast. If I need to drop the contrast I do it with development. This is N- development. How much less I could not tell you because I do not use Rodinal. A starting point might be 20% less time.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It doesn't look too bad. I think with long exposures, you pick up more contrast. You've got great shadow detail, so next time, you can reduce development. From my guess, about 10%.

 

[Laci Toth]

On my monitor I see details everywhere including the deep shadows. Looks good for a first shot.

This is where you learn about development time. You really have no control over hcontrast in the scene itself without the aid of filters. I've been told blue lowers contrast but I will be honest I have never used it. Yellow will increase contrast. If I need to drop the contrast I do it with development. This is N- development. How much less I could not tell you because I do not use Rodinal. A starting point might be 20% less time.

Yes, I’m also thinking that I shoot it at iso 50 and/or decrease developing time. I mainly shoot nature, this was a test shot that’s why I think I might use a yellow filter. But now as you also recommended to play the dev time I first give it a go.

 

[Laci Toth]

It doesn't look too bad. I think with long exposures, you pick up more contrast. You've got great shadow detail, so next time, you can reduce development. From my guess, about 10%.

Alright! I give it a try.

 

[ic-racer]

Looks like it would print fine on #2, but you say at #00 it was still too contrasty? Can we see the print?

 

[Laci Toth]

Looks like it would print fine on #2, but you say at #00 it was still too contrasty? Can we see the print?

It was shot without a filter.
A print will come soon.
I haven’t tried it with #00 I was rather wondering about the outcome, if it would help lowering the contrast.
Also would it soften the image?
Which I wouldn’t like.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'll second the comment that there's considerable detail in the deepest shadows. but the brightest highlights look a little blocked. This looks like 50% longer or double the exposure (or metering at EI 50 to 64) and cutting back development as "pull one stop" (which is very similar to a Zone System N-1) would preserve the shadows and cut back a little on the blocking of the highlights.

I wouldn't adjust anything until you've printed this, though. One thing to remember: when you're viewing a negative in reflection on a white background like this you're enhancing the contrast. That is, the developed silver blocks light twice, once when the light goes through the negative, and again when the scattered light from the white background comes back. This will almost double the apparent density of the darkest areas of the negative, and the apparent contrast. On this basis, I'm inclined to believe this negative will print just fine.

 

[mrosenlof]

With black and whote pancromatic film, a colored filrer brightens the color of the filter, and darkens complementary colors. So, if you have a scene with say, a lot of yellow and blue, a yellow filter makes the blue relatively darker than a no filter case. yellow is popular mostly because ot gives some separation between blue sky and white clouds. But it is not correct to make a blanket statement that a yellow filter raises contrast. It is highly dependent on the colors of the scene.

Multigrade filters in front of yout pinhole might makse some change in contrast because of the color of the filter, but not in the same way they do with multigrade paper. that is a very different interaction. Since they are for working with monochrome negatives, the contrast effect is of course independent of original scene colors.

So after all that, your neg looks pretty ok to me. There is a very thin spot (deep shadow) about dead center of the neg. The sky is pretty dense. You could have possibly given an extra stop of exposure and maybe decreased dev time a bit.

You may also want to find reciprocity failure tables for that film. I have only used the faster foma films, but they needed a lot of correction for exposures mich longer than one second.

Have fun!

 

[jimjm]

This negative looks fine to me. About what you'd expect from a sunny day. You've got good detail in the shadows and the sky's going to be washed-out unless you've got clouds to add detail. If you're after a particular "look' to your image, it's also important to pick the right time of day and the right lighting conditions. A bit less development time might reduce some of the highlight density, but you can often pull back some highlight detail when printing.
Paper negatives are always going to appear more contrasty as they've got a shorter dynamic range than film.

 

[Laci Toth]

I’ve printed it and it came out fine I think. Thanks for all your thoughts. I experienced that on cloudy days especially in the woods it needs one stop more exposure of course I count in the reciprocity failure as well and I cut back the developing time by 10%.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Nice! You could even go up one or two grades on the contrast to let you make the shadows a little darker without the sky getting too gray.

 

[Laci Toth]

Nice! You could even go up one or two grades on the contrast to let you make the shadows a little darker without the sky getting too gray.

Thanks! Yea, but then I’d loose the deepest shadows under the bridge and I like low contrast and smooth looking anyway.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Always a matter of printer's preference.

 

[miha]

I think you are overthinking it. The negative looks good to me; I can even read the thext through most of it.