Highlights shadows and everything in between

[Effectivepixels]

I'm relatively new to paper negatives in general and have been slowly getting into it due to its ease of developing and economy compared to large format film. One thing I have yet to work out is what the general dynamic range is for paper. I know its probably situational but just trying to figure a rule of thumb and if there is anything that can be done to reign in the highlights which seem to be the biggest problem with paper. I'm using an uncoated lens and grade 2 paper in an effort to bring down contrast a bit. My next step is to start preflashing but for now my best results come from subdued scenes and anything with wide latitude of exposure doesn't come out appealing to me.

For example two shots from this weekend. The first was in a shaded subdued area but the second has some sky which I can't get to retain any detail. Is this a limitation of the format or is it something I can overcome with the right technique.

 

[bernard_L]

One thing I have yet to work out is what the general dynamic range is for paper.

It is limited. A #2 paper has an ISO range 100-110, meaning Delta log E 1.0-1.1, or, in more familiar terms, a dynamic range between 3.3 and 3.7 f-stops. That is, if I remember correctly, between D=0.1 (light grey) and 90% of Dmax. In other words, range between pure white and pure black may be a little larger, but still very small by negative emulsion standards. Also, the Dmax of paper in transmission (paper negative) will be quite smaller than in reflection (normal print); but that is independent from the just-mentioned limit in dynamic range.

Is this a limitation of the format or is it something I can overcome with the right technique.

It is a limitation of the process, as explained above; your examples look quite good.
You can extend the dynamic a bit using #0 paper. Or multigrade paper with a #0 MG filter (gelatin filter should work in front of lens). I would not recommend using non-MG filters with MG paper, as the two (or three) curves of the different layers need to be precisely placed to achieve a continuous D-LogE curve.

 

[bvy]

You should experiment with filters. I found a green filter to bring down the contrast somewhat. Preflashing is also a good idea. There's a simple clip test you can do in the darkroom: Expose the paper to constant even light in cumulative one second increments. Whatever time shows the paper to start fogging, back off a second or two and use that as your preflash time. Google Joe Van Cleave; he's the king of paper negatives.

ETA: Your images don't look like they need much help, by the way. Paper is orthochromatic (most sensitive to blue); the sky is almost always going to blow out.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

You should experiment with filters. I found a green filter to bring down the contrast somewhat. Preflashing is also a good idea. There's a simple clip test you can do in the darkroom: Expose the paper to constant even light in cumulative one second increments. Whatever time shows the paper to start fogging, back off a second or two and use that as your preflash time. Google Joe Van Cleave; he's the king of paper negatives.

ETA: Your images don't look like they need much help, by the way. Paper is orthochromatic (most sensitive to blue); the sky is almost always going to blow out.

I second your remarks about these images not needing much help. OP you can also read the "Rodinal 1:200" thread in this forum. It has some good discussion about using diluted developers as well.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

If you study 19th century landscape photography you'll see a very similar over-exposed sky affect. This is because, like with paper negatives, such emulsions were sensitive mainly to blue and UV, of which sky light predominates.

For my purposes of creating landscape images with paper negatives, I ignore sky detail as part of the composition, assuming it will be washed out to a pure white tone. This is how 19th century landscape photographers composed; it's just a different aesthetic. It wasn't until the likes of the F64 Group and Ansel Adams that a heavily red-filtered, dark-toned sky became the accepted norm in landscape photography, since by then emulsions were panchromatic.

If you want to experiment with getting "normal" sky detail with paper negatives, just drastically under-expose the image; the sky will look normal but the landscape will be very much under-exposed, so much as to nearly be rendered as a silhouette. This is because paper emulsions are predominately sensitive to blue and UV.

Another method for getting some sky detail, especially in the corners, is with ultra-wide angle pinhole cameras, where the exposure fall-off in the corners and edges is sufficient to render some detail visible.

But for normal glass lenses, I just accept the 19th century tonal representation as part of the charm of paper negatives, and compose accordingly. Yes, preflashing helps, mainly in rendered more shadow detail, but not really in regaining sky detail.

~Joe

 

[pentaxuser]

I take it that in the second negative there is detail in the sky but that at the "correct" print time for the bulk of the print the sky is rendered almost white? If this is the case then you can try burning in the sky. However it won't be an easy burn due to the buildings and tree intruding into the sky. The tree and the sky between its bare branches is liable to turn very dark if the burn time is a lot more than the main exposure.

Maybe someone here has got an easier solution in which case I'd be interested in what it is as well

pentaxuser

 

[Effectivepixels]

Thanks for all the advice and info everyone. I'll definitely be experimenting with Rodinal 1:200 development for my paper to see if It can help me refine my process and coax a little more range/detail from the paper. Also some filters might be worth a shot, and Joe, I definitely need to research some 19th century works to learn a little about the look and capabilities of orthochromatic mediums. Great advice everyone!

 

[MartinP]

Where sky detail is seen in orthochromatic period prints, it was usually printed-in from a second negative. I recall seeing an exhibition with attention drawn to the same identical clouds in a couple of landscape prints -- the photographer/printer had evidently made a favourite 'sky' plate-negative which he had then used several times!