High contrast negative and color paper choice

[anikin]

I've recently started color printing and I am enjoying it very much. Well, I guess I'm having a typical newbie problem which I need some help with. I tried searching the apug, but so far, I could not come up with an adequate answer.

I have one 35mm negative that was taken at mid-day which has rather high contrast. The scan of the negative looks very beautiful, but when I'm trying to print it optically on Supra Endura paper, I can either get highlights or shadows printed accurately, but not both ;-).

As far as I can tell, my current options for contrast control are: pre-flashing the paper, dodging or using lower-contrast paper.

I tried pre-flashing the paper with gray-equivalent color. That brings out the details in highlights somewhat, but introduces some really muddy color. I have two types of highlights - sky and skin tone. Doing pre-flashing just adds a bit of gray to both, and it really does not look good to me. Should I try pre-flashing with skin-tone? Wouldn't it make the sky with strange color?

I will try dodging the print next, but I'm worried that I don't have much exposure time to do an acceptable quality job.

I looked at Kodak's site and it looks like they used to make Portra paper that seemingly was designed for such scenarios, but I just can't find anyone selling it.

So, the question is, what are my options for printing high-contrast negatives?

I see freestylephoto has CA type PD paper. Did anybody try it? How does it work for difficult negatives? My freezer is full of paper, and I'd like some assurance that it may help me before buying more.

Sorry about too many questions. Thank you all for help!

 

[Athiril]

I'm wondering if it is possible to make a longer exposure onto the paper than normal, and shorten developing time (or non-orthodox for colour way of diluting developer) much like we do with negatives, since you have a lot of paper it may be worth an experiment?

 

[Mike Wilde]

It is possible to flash it and then pull the development a bit to reduce contrast, but not like b&w can be done.

 

[Athiril]

I've pulled colour several stops by diluting developer or running cold.. I can correct a negative though.. for a print.. I'd imagine youd have to test it first, then do some colour correction with filters or a splitter etc.

 

[archer]

Dear Anakin;
Try SLIMT and increase exposure time by 20% to start. Filtration changes are usually very small and the procedure, depending on the dilution, will reduce contrast by as much as 2 1/2 grades or more. Just google SLIMT for a complete description of the process.
Denise Libby

 

[anikin]

Athiril, Mike,

I'll try shortening development time on my next run. I'm worried about losing some color saturation and color crossover issues, but what the heck - paper is cheap. I'll update the thread when I finish the run.

Denise, thanks for the suggestion. I've heard of the method. So have you used it successfully? I need to stock up on potassium ferricyanide, and I'll try it then.

Eugene.

 

[archer]

Dear Eugene;
Yes I've used SLIMT many times in both black and white and color. Sometimes it is the only thing that saved an important shot. I have also used the bleach and redevelop process, for prints from thin negatives, to increase saturation and contrast. I consider both these techniques important tools in an emergency caused by an equipment failure etc. However I still think that nothing is better than a properly exposed negative in the first place.
Denise Libby

 

[Athiril]

anikin: the increased exposure I would imagine should compensate for saturation.

 

[Q.G.]

A contrast mask?

 

[nickandre]

Add sodium sulphite to the developer. This reduces contrast and causes a color shift.

 

[L Gebhardt]

First I would try a low contrast paper. I still have some Kodak Portra Endura and Fuji P. If that doesn't work I would try dodging the shadows. I would make a contrast reducing mask if dodging couldn't handle it, or it needs all over contrast reduction.

 

[2F/2F]

If it is not dodgeable/burnable for you, I would look into the process of masking. You can make masks to do all sorts of things, especially with color film. You can use them to raise contrast, to lower contrast, to alter only a certain color, etc.

A mask is a slightly out of focus contact positive or negative made on black and white film from the original negative. You stack the fuzzy, neutrally-hued positive with your negative when you make the print. The easiest way to think of is as a highly specific, custom-made dodging tool. They are made fuzzy to blend the edges smoothly. They are made fuzzy by making the contact not really a contact: by using a thin piece of diffusion material in between the two pieces of film.

It is easier than it sounds. The hardest part IME is finding a diffusion material that softens the mask to just the right level. IME, the amount of softening you want depends on the picture you are printing, so it can require some (i.e. a lot of) trial and error. To make the masks, I generally use electronic flash to expose Ilford FP4, and develop in dilute one shot Ilfotec HC (1:79 - 1:127).

My favorite explanation of the process is in "The complete guide to Ilfochrome printing," by Krause and Shull. Of course, when masking negs, you get a dodging/shadow mask, and when masking positives, you get a highlight mask.

 

[anikin]

Thanks for your help guys! Apug is a gold mine for someone who tries to learn
wet photography!

I'd like to comment that I agree, that having a well-exposed negative is an
ideal situation, but it's not always possible to lighten up that deep shadow of
the Grand Canyon that you may get during your one-day trip to the north rim ;-)
What I'm trying to do is to learn how to get the best results from the
negatives that I have and with the paper and chemicals that are currently
available on the market. I want to learn how much control I have in
post-processing prior to taking that one critical shot.

I'd like to summarize suggestions on how to reduce contrast that I've gotten so far:

1. Increase exposure onto paper and shorten development time.

2. Flash paper and pull development.

3. SLIMT. Add potassium ferricyanide to RA-4 developer.

4. Contrast mask using b/w negative film.

5. Sodium sulphite added to the developer.

6. Lower contrast paper (Kodak Portra Endura or Fuji P).

7. Dodging shadows.

8. (Ian C sent by PM) Hand-made contrast mask drawn with artist's carcoal on matte acetate.
The acetate is placed directly on paper prior to exposure.

9. (Ian C sent by PM) Use dodging stand. Transparent glass on four vertical legs is placed
above negative. Black paper cutouts are placed above dodge areas on the dodging stand. The
dodging exposure is made, then the dodging table is removed for the remaining exposure.

WOW! Thanks everyone for suggestions! I will be slowly going through these
one-by-one and will try which one fits my level of abilities best, as well as
which produces the most acceptable results.


Here's what I tried so far:

(1) I increased exposure time from 11s f/11 to 20s f/11, and cut development time from 1 min 40 sec
to 1 minute at 30 degrees C:

Result: I get color in highlights, but shadows are still too dark -- not much improvement. My guess is
that my developer (Arista RA-4) still runs to completion.

Recommendations: I need to try running at colder temperature to see if I can get better pull back on shadows.

(2) So far, I've tried flashing paper without pulling development. 1 second preflash with gray-equivalent
color.

Result: Highlights improve a bit. The problem is that preflash affects colors of highlights. It looks like
this technique might work well for cases when only one dominant highlight color is present (wedding dress,
etc). When two highlight colors are present, you can print only one of them correctly.

Recommendations: I still should try Mike's suggestion of combining preflash with pulled development.

(3) Not tried yet. I will order potassium ferricyanide shortly.

(4) Not tried yet. Sounds very promising.

(5) Added 0.1g of Sodium Sulphite and 10mL of water to 50mL of developer. 20s f11 exposure time. Standard
development time.

Result: Acceptable highlights and much better shadows. Slight sephia tone in shadows, but I actually
like it that way. Very promising result. If I got this result at the first print, I might not have started
this contrast reduction quest ;-)

Recommendations: I will experiment with concentrations and times to see if I can improve color in highlights
even more.

(6) All I have is Supra Endura and CA Type C. Does anyone know where I can buy Portra Endura these days?

(7) Great idea! However, I'm having trouble finding matte acetate. Any suggestions of manufacturer brand name
and/or retailer that might carry it in US?

(8) I have not heard of the dodging stand. Sounds like a useful tool!

I don't have access to a good flatbed scanner yet. Once I get one, I'll post the comparison prints. I'll keep
this thread updated as I run my experiments. Thank you guys for all your suggestions. This is a lot of fun!

 

[archer]

Dear Anakin;
I just went to my lab notes and here is the procedure for SLIMT to reduce contrast by 1.5 grades.
bleach formula stock:
H2O=500ml
potassium ferricyanide=12.5g
potassium bromide=3.5g
working solution= 1+10,000 or three drops stock in 11oz water.
process for 2min @ 90degrees and then drain.
Wash for 30sec.
Develop and process normally.
According to my notes I increased print exposure by 110% and achieved a full 1 1/5 grade contrast reduction.
Denise Libby

 

[L Gebhardt]

(7) Great idea! However, I'm having trouble finding matte acetate. Any suggestions of manufacturer brand name
and/or retailer that might carry it in US?

Do a search for frosted mylar. Note that it comes frosted on either one side or two sided. You will want the two sided, as the one sided will give you newton rings if in contact with something else that is smooth such as the paper or negative.

You can also make the mask for use above the negative if you use a thin sheet of translucent plexiglass (about 16th of an inch is my favorite) between the negative and the mask. This diffuses the pencil marks so you don't see them. I have never used this for color printing, but I have had great success with black and white dodging masks. The advantage of using it above the negative is that you can make any size print you want without making a new mask. Also you don't need to position it for each print, and it shouldn't cut down on sharpness at all.

If you can't find the stuff locally (check a plastic supply company) send me your address and I'll send you a few sheets of the mylar and a small piece of plexiglass for you to experiment with.

 

[adariusbelly]

Tried a few papers, including HP's Premium Glossy, and Ilford's Smooth Pearl somewhat better and NO luck with Gekko papers black or red.ome for high contrast films. In addition to contrast there's also color renditions inherent to consider. Some films do better for certain colors ranges than do others.

 

[Bob-D659]

Adariusbelly, this is not a digital printing form, HP don't put light sensitive emulsion on their papers.

 

[anikin]

2F/2F, you said it: "The hardest part IME is finding a diffusion material"
I tried making the contrast mask. I used a polyethylene sheet for diffusion material. The
highlights look good now. However, I'm having two problems:

1. The texture of the diffusion layer shows up in shadow regions of the final print. It might be that
my mask is a bit too dense, and I need to redo it with less development time. However, what material
do you recommend for the diffusion, and how thick should it be for 35mm negatives?

2. The DUST. The contrast mask of 35mm negative appears to bring out every little spec during the
mask exposure. And since my darkroom used to be a chicken coup not long ago, I'm afraid I'm DOOOMED ;-)
Any suggestions on battling dust when making masks?

 

[L Gebhardt]

2F/2F, you said it: "The hardest part IME is finding a diffusion material"
I tried making the contrast mask. I used a polyethylene sheet for diffusion material. The
highlights look good now. However, I'm having two problems:

1. The texture of the diffusion layer shows up in shadow regions of the final print. It might be that
my mask is a bit too dense, and I need to redo it with less development time. However, what material
do you recommend for the diffusion, and how thick should it be for 35mm negatives?

2. The DUST. The contrast mask of 35mm negative appears to bring out every little spec during the
mask exposure. And since my darkroom used to be a chicken coup not long ago, I'm afraid I'm DOOOMED ;-)
Any suggestions on battling dust when making masks?

I know this will sounds odd, but for making masks the best diffusion material I have found is the film itself. I make my masks by putting the masking film emulsion side down. I lay the negative to mask directly on this, also emulsion side down. This has several benefits: the first being the antihalation dye and the film bas acts as your diffusion layer; second little chance of newton rings because the rougher emulsion is in contact with the smooth film base, during both the mask making process and the use of the mask; lastly, one less thing to keep dust free.

I have been using Ilford FP4+ sheet film as my masking film. I have also tried this with Ilford Ortho and it also worked fine. I have never tried it with a negative as small as 35mm, so it may turn out to be too diffuse for 35mm.

I haven't tried it, but I think a sheet or two of two sided frosted mylar would work very well as a diffusion material, with little chance of texture showing up.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Make a mask to reduce contrast. Not much else for color neg. Pro Portrait paper is lowish in contrast if you can still get it.

 

[anikin]

Denise,

For SLIMT technique. The procedure you are describing, was it used for B+W or color? I recall reading somewhere that potassium bromide is not to be used with color papers. I could be misremembering things though...

Eugene.

 

[archer]

Dear anikin;
I have used the original SLIMT bleach formula for both color and black and white and because of the extreme dilution I don't think it will harm the color developer at all, however if there is a concern, especially with RA4 developer, you could try the bleach without the potassium bromide and see what obtains. It might be possible to substitute sodium thiosulfate for the potassium bromide but the amount of thiosulfate and the pre development bleach time will have to be reached by experimentation. Remember the dilutions are on the order of 1+10,000 or more so these are extremely dilute sloutions. Happy experimenting and let us know how it works for you.
Denise Libby