Help - tonal range printing problem

[jp80874]

I am trying to expand tonal range of fiber paper enlarging TMax 400 8x10 pyro negatives to 16x20 prints. I am shooting a series on multiple 50 year old abandoned greenhouses and their contents. The greenhouses are in an open field so when there is sun it is intense but produces great shadows. Inside the greenhouses there are all the wonderful angles, weird growth you would expect and occasionally some snow. I am printing on Kentmere Fineprint VC. It appears that the negatives have a wider range of tones than the paper will take without dodging & burning. This requires more D&B than I do on other subjects. Because of the intricacy of the angles and growth D&B is confined to more difficult spots than I am happy doing.

Is there a paper and developer combination that will give me an image similar to Kentmere Fineprint VC or the Kodak Polymax VC I was using before, but with a wider tonal range? In another thread there has been quite an interest in Kentmere Bromide, J&C Nuance Expo, both developed in Amidol. Is this the route I should be taking or is there something else in my process I should look at?

My wife and back doctor say buying a 16x20 camera and contact printing on Platinum or Azo is not an option.

Tech: TMax 400 8x10 developed in Rollo Pyro. Durst 138S enlarger with Aristo Cold Light head, 8x10 carrier and Rodagon 300mm f 8 lens. Kentmere Fineprint VC developed in Ilford Multigrade.

Thanks for your thoughts.

John Powers

 

[Donald Miller]

John,

If you are not able to hold the tonal range on the Kentmere VC at grade 1/2 or 0 then it probably is beyond the tonal scale of most papers. I am not familiar with which Aristo head that you have. If this is the one with two tubes then that would be printing with all green light.

The answer probably ultimately lies in reducing the development of your camera negatives to bring the density range into line with the paper.

For those negatives that you have already shot you might try a contrast reduction mask...provided you don't want to reshoot the scene. A contrast reduction mask would amount to a low contrast and relatively low density unsharp film positive of your camera negative and it is printed in combination with your camera negative. The effect is one of density range compression of the camera negative. The compression occurs in the low values.

Another method is preflashing the paper. This will compress highlights.

On the subject of paper. The Nuance is wonderful paper. I much prefer it to Kentmere VC. The trade off is that it is graded and requires good exposure and development regimen.

 

[jp80874]

John,

If you are not able to hold the tonal range on the Kentmere VC at grade 1/2 or 0 then it probably is beyond the tonal scale of most papers. I am not familiar with which Aristo head that you have. If this is the one with two tubes then that would be printing with all green light.

The answer probably ultimately lies in reducing the development of your camera negatives to bring the density range into line with the paper.

For those negatives that you have already shot you might try a contrast reduction mask...provided you don't want to reshoot the scene. A contrast reduction mask would amount to a low contrast and relatively low density unsharp film positive of your camera negative and it is printed in combination with your camera negative. The effect is one of density range compression of the camera negative. The compression occurs in the low values.

Another method is preflashing the paper. This will compress highlights.

On the subject of paper. The Nuance is wonderful paper. I much prefer it to Kentmere VC. The trade off is that it is graded and requires good exposure and development regimen.

Donald the Aristo head is model 1212 using 240 watts.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you are suggesting ways to reduce the contrast. Will this allow me to print tones that I currently have to dodge and burn using Ilford #2 and #2.5 filters? When I have tried to reduce the contrast the image becomes flat as expected.
Thanks,
John

 

[Donald Miller]

Donald the Aristo head is model 1212 using 240 watts.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you are suggesting ways to reduce the contrast. Will this allow me to print tones that I currently have to dodge and burn using Ilford #2 and #2.5 filters? When I have tried to reduce the contrast the image becomes flat as expected.
Thanks,
John

John,

The reason that I mentioned reducing the density range of the camera negative is that if you are dodging and burning a lot it tells me that you are exceeding the exposure scale of the paper.

The need for burning comes from overexposure and/or overdevelopment of the camera negative. The need for dodging comes from overexposure and/or overdevelopment of the camera negative. Both are methods to bring the camera negative density range into conformity with the exposure scale of the paper. The scale of the paper is the final determiner of the proper density range of the camera negative.

In your initial post, you mentioned that the paper could not hold the range of the negative. If the paper is at it's limits then that indicates that the camera negative possesses an excessive density range or contrast. The answer is not going to longer scaled paper...first because there are none unless you want to contact print. So the answer is reducing the contrast of the film negative.

If you have excessive contrast in the scene that you are photographing then there are steps to take at the time of the exposure...just as these conditions call for reduced development of the camera negative.

 

[Donald Miller]

John,

As an addendum to my earlier reply, there is seemingly quite often a struggle within an image between overall contrast and maintaining local contrast.

By overall contrast, I mean the range between the deepest black and the whitest white that the paper will accomodate and translate from the density range present on the camera negative.

By local contrast, I mean the contrast between adjacent tonal variances in the print.

Local contrast is the ingredient that is required to have a print evidence a sense of light or brilliance. It is the more vital of the two different contrasts that I mentioned.

So in the attempt to increase or to evidence local contrast in a print, often times the overall contrast of the image is exceeded...or more accurately the paper's ability to hold the overall contrast.

It is for this conundrum that various methods of printing for local contrast while maintaining overall contrast are used.

 

[jp80874]

John,

The reason that I mentioned reducing the density range of the camera negative is that if you are dodging and burning a lot it tells me that you are exceeding the exposure scale of the paper.

The need for burning comes from overexposure and/or overdevelopment of the camera negative. The need for dodging comes from overexposure and/or overdevelopment of the camera negative. Both are methods to bring the camera negative density range into conformity with the exposure scale of the paper. The scale of the paper is the final determiner of the proper density range of the camera negative.

In your initial post, you mentioned that the paper could not hold the range of the negative. If the paper is at it's limits then that indicates that the camera negative possesses an excessive density range or contrast. The answer is not going to longer scaled paper...first because there are none unless you want to contact print. So the answer is reducing the contrast of the film negative.

If you have excessive contrast in the scene that you are photographing then there are steps to take at the time of the exposure...just as these conditions call for reduced development of the camera negative.

Okay. Into the darkroom tomorrow to give it a try.

If I reshoot the film I will try on a grey day to reduce the range. I am just afraid that will make the whole image too flat.

I have done some platinum printing and I do love the range. Unfortunately I want prints larger than 8x10 but at 66 that is about as much camera as I can handle even with the babyjogger.

Thanks,

John

 

[Donald Miller]

Okay. Into the darkroom tomorrow to give it a try.

If I reshoot the film I will try on a grey day to reduce the range. I am just afraid that will make the whole image too flat.

I have done some platinum printing and I do love the range. Unfortunately I want prints larger than 8x10 but at 66 that is about as much camera as I can handle even with the babyjogger.

Thanks,

John

John,

I hear you on lugging the camera around. You have three more years then me and I find myself gravitating to smaller cameras as time goes by.

I would suggest, John, if you haven't already done so, it might save a lot of time and expense to run a test on the exposure scale of the paper that you want to use with a step wedge. Then you will be able to determine the density range of the camera negative to accomodate it.

Good luck to you.

 

[dancqu]

Is there a paper and developer combination that will
give me an image similar to Kentmere Fineprint VC or
the Kodak Polymax VC I was using before, but with
a wider tonal range? John Powers

I wonder if any have checked the grade curves of
a few of the VC papers out there. I've checked Ilford's
and Kentmere's. To look at some of those curves one can
only surmise that they qualify as VC papers because of their
performance as such at densities of near 1 or more. Take
a look then compare with the beautiful curves of Galerie
and of Kentmere's Graded papers. Dan

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I would reshoot. In new situation always make some spare negs which you develope and print before you develope the balance.

If you can`t go back, flashing the paper will get more detail in the highlights.

Make a contrast reduction mask and sandwich with the neg for printing

Make drafting velum paper mask and pencil in the shadows so they are darker thus allowing a longer exposure.

Make a clear sheet of new film, sandwich it with the contrasty neg. Then do dye dodging with a brush to the shadow areas.

Farmers reducer and reduce the contrast of the neg. Make a new neg of anything and practice first.

I have started with the easiest solution and worked up. All really require more instruction than what can be put in a forum answer.

 

[gainer]

Any time you have a window in a scene you have two scenes, each with its contrast requirements, unless you are willing to let one or the other go. The eye does not see the window and the inner scene simultaneously. In point of fact, the eye sees nothing but about 1 angular degree simultaneously and adapts to different brightness levels as it scans. We cannot duplicate that behavior with our cameras, and we cannot even truly provide the eye with an image that will allow it to duplicate its normal behavior. When a scene exceeds the brightness range over which the whitest and blackest tones the paper can reasonably represent what we see without brightness adaptation, we resort to dodging and/or burning to make local contrast approach what we would see when looking at the original scene. There is, of course, artistic license involved, but that also involves dodging and burning.

There are ways of producing contrast reducing masks which are essentially transparent in highlight areas, which masks can do much if not all of the dodging and burning you would need in order to make the picture interesting. You will have to do some experimenting, probably with high contrast copy film, but once you have made a mask it can become a part of the negative. Much has been written by Howard Bond and others about the uses of unsharp masking.

 

[Donald Miller]

To follow on what Gainer wrote, one of the ways that I have found to deal with the extreme brightness range scenes is to preflash the film at exposure. I do this differently then what Ansel seemed to be saying in his writings.

What I do is meter the scene and then determine the amount of pre-exposure to non image bearing light that I want. I have had times where I have pre-exposed as high as a zone IV value. I then make my second exposure based on placing my highlights on a Zone VIII and not on my shadow values. The shadow values have already been covered in the pre-exposure.

The benefit to doing this at exposure is that the compression of density occurs in the shadows whereas pre flashing paper during printing brings about compression in the highlights.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

I understand completely what you are experiencing. I struggled with this situation for a long protracted period. There are generally two procedures that people use with their photography to drive their exposure, development and print process. The first is usually some form of Zone System testing for film speed and expasion and development from which many folks simply iterate with these variables to "dial" these variables onto the print. IMHO the further from normal exposure and development real life situations are that one wants to photograph, I feel that the traps with Zone System widen particularly with unintentional or unsuspecting photographers that have truly not taken the time to calibrate their materials and intuitively understand these relationships. That described me as I (retrospectively) overexposed and overdeveloped my negatives and the frustration levels continued to rise.

Until I read the Beyond The Zone System manual by Phil Davis, got a handle on my materials with his software and started using his incident system for exposure and put my spot meter in my back pocket for occasional checks I was a random number generator with my photography. Every once in a while I was all over it but I was not as consistent as I strived to be. Now I can quickly arrive at a proper Subject Brightness Range (SBR) and convert this to an optimal exposure and development time that is as close to 100% consistent that one could expect.

I would recommend that before you proceed with any pre-exposure or flashing techniques you consider getting back to basics and drive your process to consistently answer the fundamental question- "With any particular scene you chose to photograph, how does one translate the subject illumination to produce a negative that optimally matches the paper grade your chose?"

I used to spend the flip side of forever with my digital spot meter and a continuous array of numbers to the point that it was taking over the entire process. Now the process takes about 2 minutes tops with my Sekonic incident meter and the results are on the money all of the time. Yes, I needed to do a bit of pre-work ahead of time re-learning some materials and testing, but it was a one time event from which I will never go back. I have the Zone system as a check and occasionally use my spot meter for a check, but it is a rare event. At the end of the day it is about making the best use of the limited time that many of us have to photograph.

Cheers!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another possible short-term solution to this problem is to try split-grade printing. There have been lots of threads here describing this process far better than I can distill it at this moment in time, but I recommend taking a look at it to see if this may help you. The short of it is that you make two exposures on the paper, one with the highest contrast filter, and one with the lowest contrast filter. The two exposures will be of significantly different times. You make the low-contrast exposure to get your highlights where you want them, then the high-contrast exposure to get your shadows where you want them. This technique can often tame all but the most out-of-control negatives.

That said, still do the testing as recommended above to get your negatives better under control. Far better to print a negative that has a density range matched to your paper than one that needs manipulation to fit the paper after the fact.

 

[lowellh]

I would recommend our CLAYTON EXTENDplus DEVELOPER for this application. This is the exact appliction the we designed this product to perform. It will bring out the detail that normally does not appear with higher contrast developers.

 

[dancqu]

Another possible short-term solution to
this problem is to try split-grade printing.
... make the low-contrast exposure to get
your highlights where you want them, then
the high-contrast exposure to get your
shadows where you want them.

Check the grade curves as I suggested in my
first post this thread. As you will see a VC paper's
dense areas will grade with changes in filtration. As
density decreases grade change with change in
filtration also decreases. Depending on whose
paper, as little as a grade +/- a fraction and
at most 2+ grades are possible.

Fuji's Rembrant addresses this VC print paper
problem by offering VC print paper in grades
2 and 3.

I think you'll find the grade curves very
interesting. Be sure to compare with
the Graded paper curves. Dan

 

[Bob Carnie]

John

I would second Flying Cameras split printing info.
As I know you are coming to the conference , I would hope you are taking Les Mcleans course on split printing.

I use a method a bit different than Les, I use a three filter method , In your original post you mention you are using pyro as a developer and that is good.

I have yet to meet a negative that, split filter printing , cannot help. and I have seen a few dogs.

We are two months away and I will show you my method *off hours*as will Les if you take his course.
There are threads devoted to this subject and the different methods of split printing have been discussed as well as paper flashing.
I would try this route rather than change your shooting habits.

 

[Ken Lee]

Contrast can also be controlled with your choice of paper developer.

Some of the softer formulas use Metol only, which is a slower and gentler developing agent compared to Hydroquinone. Unlike the "classic" Dektol, many formulas can give a range of contrast, according to dilution.

Have a look at Kodak Selectol-Soft, if you want to get something pre-mixed. If you would prefer to mix your own, see the Ansco 120 Formula described at http://wynnwhitephoto.com/print.html

Another good source is Photographer's Formulary. They sell the Ansco 120 formula, and other developers that allow you to control contrast.

I was quite surprised when I realized that paper developers can play just as large a role as film developers.

 

[MMfoto]

There is some info in a Tim Rudman book about pre-bleaching paper before printing to reduce contrast to low grades not otherwise available. "Contrawise bleaching" if I remember correctly.

 

[jp80874]

I want to thank all who thought about my question, answered on form or sent PMs.
It has been very helpful. As you may have seen in other posts I am retired and have been taking photo courses at the college level for three years with workshops during the off season. This series of greenhouses in intense light with angles every which way is the first time I have had the problem described. The negatives cannot be too far out of spec because I normally print at 2 or 2.5 filters. Since I use a cold light
head Kentmere cautions that that I may not get the results with 0 and 5 filters that
I would with a different light source. I may need to try Ilford’s equivalent multigrade paper if they do not have a similar problem. I need to read their specs.

I have not been split grade printing other than a few experiments. Coincidentally I am reading Les McLean’s book now, but am about twenty pages shy of that section. I have jury duty this coming week so I gather I will have much hurry up and wait time
to read. I am signed up for both Les’ workshop and critique at the APUG conference
so I am sure I will learn a lot more.

Bob Carrie I appreciate your offer to show me your three filter variation of this. From another thread I know just where to find you, on a cot in the unused darkroom.

MMfoto I am also signed up for Tim Rudman’s workshop so I can ask there as well.
Thank you both.

I plan to continue this greenhouse series in the summer to see the same scenes with fuller foliage and probably more sun. If split grade printing and a possible conversion
to another paper don’t help then I will try the many other methods suggested.

Thank you all for your consideration and offered help.

John Powers

 

[MMfoto]

Well, it sounds like you have a very nice project to work on. I wish you good luck and good light.

 

[Donald Miller]

John, This greenhouse project sounds like a wonderful project. I look forward to seeing some of the images from that. Good luck to you.

 

[jp80874]

Thanks Donald for your kind words and help. It is an amazing place, twenty greenhouses in a row, roughly 100x300 feet each. The first one was build in 1950. I am told that they grew tomatoes for eight years then the heating costs shut them down. They are 1/4 mile from Lake Erie so high winds in storms prevail. 40-50 years worth of untamed growth and destruction has made some really interesting sights. Lots of broken glass. The sky is falling is a very realistic concern. I mentioned earlier that I ran into an Oberlin College Photo professor shooting there wearing a crash helmet. I'm thinking of wearing a hard hat and I do wear heavy boots.

Once I solve this problem I will then have to research what kind of scanner for 8x10 negatives or 16x20 prints and how to post to APUG. Film at eleven is not likely to be soon.

Thanks,

John Powers

 

[dancqu]

There is some info in a Tim Rudman book about
pre-bleaching paper before printing to reduce contrast
to low grades not otherwise available. "

Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique.
SLIMT for a whole lot shorter. Read about it at:
www.unblinkingeye.com.

Very good reports of it's usage. And, BTW, after
not before printing. Dan

 

[jp80874]

Thank you. Just to confirm, are you suggesting Ed Buffaloe's article "Latent Image Bleaching", not Tim Rudman?

John Powers

 

[MMfoto]

And, BTW, after
not before printing. Dan

Ah. Yeah that does makes more sence I suppose. I could swear he wrote about bleaching before, but I'm sure your correct. OK who has the book handy?