Help Me Settle An Argument RE: Film base

This is pretty particular (to this argument) to 35mm film in general, but Plus-X in this situation.

So a friend and I were looking at some prints .. they were specifically made by using a single 35mm negative in a 4x5 glass holder, in order to print a lot of black around the image ... so yes, rebate, film markings, and beyond - a couple of inches of black paper all around. The aesthetic arguments at this point are irrelevant.

The question is ... the film base, that is the clear film by the rebate / sprockets is not always pure black (call it Zone 0?) or what I'll call paper black, Maximum DMax for Paper X. The argument arose that this should indeed be black, but I think the film base+fog prevents this in cases ... depending on the developer, etc. The argument got more heated when we started talking about the blacks in the image itself .... which do appear to be paper black, or Zone 0 (give a certain neg that should have these areas.)

So ... is there any winner here? If one was printing this way should the clear film always rest in Zone 0? Because if adjustments are made to achieve this, the contrast and tone of the image itself start to shift to unacceptable realms.

This is kind of an esoteric argument I suppose. And we decided to not get into the issue of just burning in the film edges itself .. trying to nail down a kind of "pure" decision, one that deals only with straight film, development, and enlarging - for arguments sake.

The unexposed parts within the image can't have a lesser density than the clear part of the rebate.

Unless..., the rebates have been fogged during the signing exposure.

And unless neighbouring effects during developing would even have reduced development of the basic fog,

What AgX states is correct. Clear film base should always print as zone 0. If the film base is not printing as zone 0, then not enough exposure is being given during printing. If the overall print looks too dark or lacks shadow detail when printed so as to achieve Dmax, then it is likely that the film was not given enough exposure at capture. This is partially what finding "true film speed" and a development time that yields an appropriate contrast is all about!

E76 said:

What AgX states is correct. Clear film base should always print as zone 0. If the film base is not printing as zone 0, then not enough exposure is being given during printing. If the overall print looks too dark or lacks shadow detail when printed so as to achieve Dmax, then it is likely that the film was not given enough exposure at capture. This is partially what finding "true film speed" and a development time that yields an appropriate contrast is all about!

Click to expand...

Understood ...

But I have two questions/points then:

1. Ideally, one should use one film/dev, find true film speed etc. But as a mostly 35mm shooter I can be a scavenger, using different films as I can afford or what's given me, or on a whim, etc. Ok that's kind of just a statement, but hehe.

2. So, in reality, people who print "dirty full frame" for lack of a better term - full frame, black box, with rebate and sprocket holes .. really, we should never be able to see any sprocket holes, as they (the film base) should be black. Correct?

edit: I just thought about that 2nd point .. and forgot that light will bounce off the edges of the sprockets ...

What was the photographer's intention?

The last time I checked we still lived in a free country. It should be up to the photographer to decide what is important.

I don't understand why you would have printed a 35mm negative in a 4x5 aperture but, honestly, it's none of my business. You and your companion saw fit to do so. That's good enough for me.

In the photography classes I took, the atmosphere was always very academic. I always presumed that there was such a thing as "correct" exposure and the teacher was the arbiter of what was correct. Within the academic context, I presume that this is the way things ought to be. To learn requires that one trust the teacher's judgment. Otherwise, one would not need a teacher. Would he?

One of the first questions I asked when joining APUG was regarding exposure of film. I presumed that, as it was in my academic context, that there was a universal "correct" exposure. I was somewhat taken aback when somebody said that a correctly exposed photograph depends on what the photographer's intentions were at the time the photograph was taken.

Some of you guys will chuckle at me for saying so but it was a revelation for me to finally understand that it is my damn photograph and I have the right to make it any way I damn-well please. Yes, there are generally accepted standards for what separates a good photograph from a bad one but, if the photographer achieves the image he sought when he pressed the shutter (or when he composed on the enlarger) then, technical standards be damned. If the finished product portrays what the photographer intended then it is "correct" as it stands.

Certainly, everyone has the right to express his likes and dislikes about what he sees as art but nobody has the right to say that one person's art is more valid than another's.

Okay, so this is a lot of fussing around about philosophical arguments. Hey! It's Saturday night! I've had a few beers. All right?

The point I'm making goes back to what I asked at the beginning of this post.

If your quest is purely technical and/or academic then there is a valid point in asking whether the D-Max should be set in reference to the negative space around the film or whether it should be set in reference to the film, itself.

If your quest is to decide what the photographer's intentions should be then nobody can answer that question but the person who makes the image.

If you are the photographer and you are the one who is making the image then your friend can make any argument he wants but he has no right to coerce you to do things his way. He is your friend and, certainly, you want to listen to his argument but, when it comes down to brass tacks, it's your damn picture. Nobody has the right to tell you what to do except you.

However, given all that... Since this does seem to be an academic exercise...

If the point of the exercise is to set exposure as it is printed on paper, then I would target your D-Max using the negative space around the film.

If the point of the exercise is to set exposure as it is seen by the film then I would target your D-Max using the unexposed areas of the film.

If this is strictly an artistic endeavor, do it any way you see fit and tell everybody else to go to Hell.

Worker 11811 said:

What was the photographer's intention?

The last time I checked we still lived in a free country. It should be up to the photographer to decide what is important.

I don't understand why you would have printed a 35mm negative in a 4x5 aperture but, honestly, it's none of my business. You and your companion saw fit to do so. That's good enough for me.

Click to expand...

Part of having good companions around me is to have arbitrary "discussions" about our craft ... so yea, freedom of speech!

To answer your question, as it is relevant to my original post ... we were exploring the idea of "floating" a 35mm frame in black space ... printed on paper that way, as opposed to just mounting it on black board. Has to do with blah blah singularities and film aesthetics and format wars etc. Yes, its both an academic (read: conceptual) and a technical exercise.

Much of this arose from thinking about a 4x5 glass carrier as kind of a canvas ... so instead of using "proper" negative carriers for film format "x" - one could print multiple 35's at once, or mix a 6x4.5 with a 35 ... you know, just about whatever would fit in the space. Or float a small neg in a large black void. Why? Because we can!

Well, then, it is my opinion... tell me to go to Hell if you like... that, since you are trying to show off the 35mm film in the negative space of the 4x5 frame that you should do what is necessary to highlight the film against its background.

If setting D-Max to the paper's preference gives you the best contrast between the film and the negative space around it then that is what you should to. If setting it the other way around produces the best result, then that is what you should do.

But if you ask me... and you didn't, really... but WTF? I'm all liquored up! Right... so what the hell...
Since, setting D-Max at the negative space around the film should cause the film to be slightly lighter than the surrounding negative space, that would show off the film. Wouldn't it? That's what I would do.

In your situation, if I am understanding your intent, I would like to see the empty space between the 35mm film and the aperture of the 4x5 negative carrier be "black-black" and the unexposed edges of the film be just a hair bit lighter than the surrounding negative space.

Therefore, I would set D-Max at just the threshold between the unexposed areas of the film and the negative space around it. Then I would go a little bit above and below that point until I found the best result which matched my overall intentions when I started the project.

Good points. FWIW, the 4x5 space isn't static .... its just that its big enough to work in The amount of actual black space left around the image/images is arbitrary and can be adjusted via the masks in the enlarger and / or 4bladed easel. But I understood your beer induced message

Chimay Blue, if it makes any difference...

Worker 11811 said:

But if you ask me... and you didn't, really... but WTF? I'm all liquored up!

Click to expand...

Naw, if you were all liquored up you'd be slurring your words.

5stringdeath said:

... 2. So, in reality, people who print "dirty full frame" for lack of a better term - full frame, black box, with rebate and sprocket holes .. really, we should never be able to see any sprocket holes, as they (the film base) should be black. Correct?

edit: I just thought about that 2nd point .. and forgot that light will bounce off the edges of the sprockets ...

Click to expand...

I agree with AgX and E76, however, I need to add one point.

Due to edge turbulences during development, the sprocket-hole borders may pick up some increased fog density that will bring them above the base fog density. In addition, there are some light-piping issues in the film base that may have an influence. This will make the sprocket holes show up on the full-frame print. However, the clear film area, just outside the image area, is the darkest part of the film and should be printed at Dmax (Zone 0) unless one decides otherwise for aesthetic reasons.

5stringdeath said:

2. So, in reality, people who print "dirty full frame" for lack of a better term - full frame, black box, with rebate and sprocket holes .. really, we should never be able to see any sprocket holes, as they (the film base) should be black. Correct?

Click to expand...

Well, what do you *want* to see?

As I was reading this, I remembered that I had sitting nearby a stack of contact sheets from last week. Looking at those, I can faintly see the film edge and sprocket holes. In one sense, this says that I underexposed the sheet. But looking at it, I can see how someone might like the aesthetic -- similar to all the discussions of ads with Hasselblad borders.

It does, of course, mean that my blacks aren't really black. But it might be worth that price.

RalphLambrecht said:

Due to edge turbulences during development, the sprocket-hole borders may pick up some increased fog density that will bring them above the base fog density. In addition, there are some light-piping issues in the film base that may have an influence.

Click to expand...

One further point along these lines: There may be very minor light leaks (in the camera, or conceivably elsewhere) that could further increase the density along the edges. When I've seen this sort of thing, it's pretty obvious, it often affects the frames, and it's not uniform -- there'll be a splotch here, then another there, and so on. Something a little more subtle might not have an obvious affect on the image area, but could conceivably put splotches of light around the sprockets.

Note that I'm speaking theoretically. I've never tried printing in the way described, and I've not gone looking for such very minor light leaks. I expect that something like this could exist on at least some cameras, though, extrapolating from the light leaks I have seen.

In my experience sprocket holes show up no matter what, largely because of the light piping effect that Ralph brought up. You'd have to print pretty hard, way harder than necessary, to make them go away.