how can one develop a decent photograph at grade 1 or 2?

[Charles Webb]

No, I have never heard of this before. My instructors and fellow photographers worked hard to produce negatives that printed their
best on grade 2. All of my large format are printed on grade 2 Dupont or Medalist
papers. The simple fact is that I never heard or read of it, but I could have missed that information along the trail. To be honest, it kind of makes good
sense.

Charlie...............................

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Interestingly enough, I have never seen this mentioned before on APUG, but at one time, most paper manufacturers suggested the use of grade 3 as the standard for enlarging due to the flare encountered when enlarging negatives.

And, they suggested going up in contrast grade as magnification increased.

Has anyone else heard of this from way back when?

I've seen quite a few people recommending G3 as a standard for 35mm. I've developped negatives for G2 and noticed that they would always look a bit better on G2.5-G3 so now I'll be targetting my negs for G3 (i.e. to avoid the occasional blown highlights).

I'm not sure how to put it in words that make sense, but my impression was that the gradations of 35mm were not as well perceptually defined.

Let's say for example that you have side light on a face so that there is a transition from bright to dark. Well, in 35mm the intermediary tones are not as well separated as in 120 for the same paper contrast, printed at the same size.

This would be consistent with your statement about magnification: the more a picture is magnified, the more contrast it needs for an observer to perceive gradations. Logically, an 8x10 contact that prints on G1 could help a G2 when enlarged at 20x24, for example.

I'm not sure if that is purely perceptual, though, or whether some physics of enlargement come into play (light scattering, etc). A test could be to make two prints of different sizes on the same grade of paper, and view them at separate distances so that they look the same dimensions to a fixed observer.

 

[Tony Egan]

...And, they suggested going up in contrast grade as magnification increased.

Has anyone else heard of this from way back when?

Yes, increasing contrast with higher magnification is a rule of thumb I am familiar with but not the "normal grade" for printing.....

As always the test is the final print you are trying to achieve and taming all the variables, the negative being the most critical. I recommend familiarising yourself with the "minimax" test for your particular film and paper. Determine the minimum exposure time to get maximum black through film base at a desired magnification and make a several prints from a roll at this time. The result of this print will tell you all you need to know about changing exposure or development. I suspect you may be underexposing and perhaps underdeveloping.

I routinely make terrific looking prints at grade 1/2 through 1 1/2 on Agfa MCC (now defunct). Recently moved to Ilford Warmtone and it seems to need at least one higher grade to get the same look and feel as the Agfa. It also needs at least twice the time due to silver content. Also tried Tetenal rumoured to be similar to Agfa MCC but it runs to black too quickly for my taste. I was printing grade 0 and still getting hard blacks too soon.

Anyway, my advice is reduce the variables to only one film, paper, developers and master that. My path was trix (and fp4), xtol, Agfa MCC and Neutol plus but each to their own.

 

[Ian Grant]

From personal experience I have to tell you your results are exactly as I'd expect, I've spent the last 35 years shooting rock concerts. Tri-X is definately not the best choice of film, I found HP5 to be slightly better pusher.

However Ilfords release of XP1 a few years ago brought a far higher degree of control and quality particlularly when push processed in C41 chemistry retaining far greater tonality. XP2 push processes just as well, and prints on about Grade 2 Ilford RC.

Ian

'm only wondering why i have to use such a high grade under those circumstances: hard concert light, push processing... everything that gives a lot of contrast usually. and i would expect to use a lower gradation than normal under those circumstances.

 

[Ole]

sounds interesting. i was thinking about trying to rule out the enlarger.
i do have a pack of maco "expo g" paper, which is grade 2. so i'd have to use a different enlarger, only using white light (without the filter box) won't be enough?

You can use the same enlarger, just set all the filters to zero. Graded papers are less finicky than VC, not more!

 

[MMfoto]

I think exposure matters as much as anything. I like printing my 35mm negs around grade 3. I tend to overexpose without reducing development, then print my fat negs on a mid-hard paper grade for good shadow seperation and strong blacks, as well as a pronounced grain structure. I can't speak in sensitometric terms with much authority, that's just how I do it.

 

[firecracker]

For a couple of years, I didn't have a darkroom so I had the local photo place develop my film, and the results were drastically different from what I used to be familiar with, with my own charts on film developing for making printable negs. Mostly the images on the film came out okay in terms of contrast and details, but there were some that ended up with extreme contrast and underdevelopment. For them, the grade#02 or even #01 looked too contrasty. I got very unmotivated and started to hate what happened. I tried PS on a computer to at least pre-visualize what the final prints would have to look and kept the inkjet print-outs as the reference.

When I got my current darkroom equipment, a lot of things were so new and very unfamilar to me, and for the next one or two years until very recently, I had to spend so much time adjusting to that quality by experimenting (again!) on the developing agents, dilution, time, agitation. Well, I have more control now and seem to print a little diffrently compared to how I used to do in the past, but in many ways, it's better, because I feel like I've experienced the best and the worst in those years.

So, don't get carried away with the negs you currently cannot conrol in the printing process. Take your time and learn more of how-to, and see what other options are for you. Changing paper, lens, contrast filters is essential for quality improvement, but not when your prints look extremely poor like the ones posted earlier.

 

[phritz phantom]

thanks a lot for all your input and time.

i wasn't asking for basic information, like e.i. testing etc. i am doing this for quite a few years now and get the images i want to. as said before, my times are tested and checked with a densitometer. my negatives aren't that bad.

i just wanted to find out if my printing at higher grades is a matter of personal taste or a flaw in my processing. so that i could eventually get even better images or get them easier.

thanks again to donald for posting that picture (which is great as always) and showing me, that there's no way of comparing things like that over the internet. i couldn't say anything about the tone of the real picture, although i doubt that i would get that clear tone at grade 2.
i thought that there maybe was some kind of common error, which causes mushiness or softness at lower grades.

i'll try printing with white light and graded paper as soon as i am doing darkroom work again. and will post about it if there were any improvements.

 

[gainer]

The book "Principals of Optics" by Hardy and Perrin, whose names you will also see in "The Theory of The Photographic Process", explains that by and large the product of the slopes of negative (film) and positive (paper or transparency) should be 1 or somewhat greater. Generally speaking, it is best for the positive material to have the greater slope. For this reason, the slope of the negative material will usually be around 0.7. By slope, I mean the average value of optical density divided by logarithm of exposure. A negative that follows that principle will make a very flat print on grade 1 paper and even sometimes on grade 2.

The important part of exposing and developing a negative is to capture whatever part of a scene that you want in a form that can be printed in a visually satisfying form on paper. Transparencies are a lesser problem because they do not depend on reflection.

Just capturing all the essebtials of a scene in negative or transparency form does not mean that you can print it satisfactorilly on paper without some dodging and/or burning. If you make the ends match so that the lightest part of the negative is the darkest part of the positive and vice versa, what lies between may be dull as dirt. A painter can make you feel blinded by his rendition of the sun, yet let you see details in the forest. All those tonal values lie between the white of the canvas the the black of his darkest pigment. You may capture the brightest and darkest parts of the same scene on film, and yet find that you must do more than make ends meet. Get over the idea that you can simply develop to the right Gamma and pick the right grade of paper. Sometimes it works. You must realize, however, that your eye is very adaptive. Wherever you look in an actual scene there will be a very light point and a very dark point. The brightest light at your look point may not be the brightest light in the whole scene, but when you make a print it has to look that way, or as nearly so as you can make it. You are the only one who can make that happen the way you want it. Only in the simplest scenes is there a simple formula that will make it happen.

Great Grampa Gainer has spoken.

 

[vet173]

Simply stated, A number 2 paper will not have the Dmax that same # 3 would. You still want the range of a # 2 though. Print on # 2 then Tone to get the #3 Dmax you want. Are you developing for a condencer ( .4 CI ) or diffused ( .6 CI ) light source? If you are developing to condencer specs, neg would need more contrast when printed diffused. That lighting, film, and speed rating, and your still printing on 4-5 paper, I vote for flaw in processing. Plus, as mentioned, a change to HP-5.

 

[Ole]

Simply stated, A number 2 paper will not have the Dmax that same # 3 would.

Simply stated, that is completely wrong. Dmax is not influenced by grade.

 

[gainer]

Ole is right. The Dmin of a negative can be made to produce essentially the same Dmax on paper of any grade. If you have the wrong grade, the other end of the scale will either be washed out or too dark.
If you print for the highlights, your shadows can be too dark too soon or muddy gray if the paper grade is not right. These situations are governed by scene brightness range and development of the negative.
Once you have a negative, for better or worse, you can measure its density range and distribution to determine what grade of paper is appropriate and whether or not you will need to do dodging and burning. If dodging and burning is necessary with one grade of paper, it will be necessary with any other grade of paper.
If grade 1 is all you have, lots of luck. You can use it when the scene brightness is in the normal range by adjusting your development of the negative. The main value of VC paper is for correcting errors in development, not excessive SBR. A wide range scene is usually two or more normal range scenes in one, and will require dodging or burning of secondary scenes to make a good print because that is the way the eye sees the original view.

 

[Markok765]

I Print my pushed negs from tri-x in rodinal at grade 1 for good seperation and deep blacks, and clean whites

 

[ilya1963]

"If grade 1 is all you have, lots of luck. You can use it when the scene brightness is in the normal range by adjusting your development of the negative. The main value of VC paper is for correcting errors in development, not excessive SBR. A wide range scene is usually two or more normal range scenes in one, and will require dodging or burning of secondary scenes to make a good print because that is the way the eye sees the original view."
__________________
"Great Grampa Gainer " what you 've wrote above is very clear and right in the nutshell, no doubdt.
I think the only exception to this is Amidol and Azo combination. I have been able to print with #2 exclusivly by adjusting time in developer with multitude of different SBR"s , BUT not without some dodging and burning , althou much less then with any other combinations...
I hope that the new Lodima performs this good ...

Happy Hollidays

 

[gainer]

I Print my pushed negs from tri-x in rodinal at grade 1 for good seperation and deep blacks, and clean whites

Pushed negatives are generally of low or normal SBR and will print adequately if not superbly on normal or lower contrast paper. The pushing, of course, increases the negative contrast.

 

[Loren Sattler]

I "under develop" Tri-X 400 120 film at about 8:15 minutes in D76 1:1 at 68 degrees. With my condensor enlarger and VC RC papers (Agfa MCP310 RC or Ilford Multigrade IV) my typical filter is a 1-1/2 to achieve normal contrast. After having overdevopment at the film edges (where the film meets the stainless steel real) for a long time, I discovered "proper" agitation according to Kodak. Read here from Kokak's technical web site: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...4&lc=en#small-tankprocessing(8-or16-ouncetank) . They recommend 5 or 6 brisk tank inversions every 30 seconds. This brings the contrast up considerably and for me, aids even negative development. No more burning the edges of prints just to try to even out the density. In bright sunshine, I lower the time another 10-15%. In dull light, I increase about 20%. Agitation is the same regardless of development time.

I have been considering lowering my standard times to achieve a standard filter of 2 or 3 rather than 1-1/2.

Try Kodak's agitation procedure. It solves or avoids other issues.

 

[avandesande]

Yes, this has been suggested to preserve the highlights and avoid blocking because of the callier effect. You would think that a grade 2 negative would have a longer scale but this is not what actually happens when it is printed.

This is not a problem with a contact print.

Interestingly enough, I have never seen this mentioned before on APUG, but at one time, most paper manufacturers suggested the use of grade 3 as the standard for enlarging due to the flare encountered when enlarging negatives.

And, they suggested going up in contrast grade as magnification increased.

Has anyone else heard of this from way back when?

 

[percepts]

maybe it's the water here.
my development times are usually a lot longer than those suggested on the box or at internet sources (digitaltruth, unblinkingeye...).
i develop trix at 200asa for 9,5minutes in hc110 dil. H.
and 400asa for 17min. -- for n-development.
(although i don't agitate much, 3 inversions every 3 minutes)

i should run a test using distilled water.

edit: thanks for the replies & suggestions.

Personally I think you are using the wrong tool for the job. That is TriX.
Night time and concerts put you into reciprocity territory and reciprocity increases relative contrast in the neg. That is, when the highlights are properly exposed the shadows have not received enough exposure.
Tri X has an upswept curve which means you get good separation in highlights and poor separation in shadows. When you enter reciprocity territory with a film like that one of two things happen depending on where you base your exposure. If you base it on shadows and compensate for reciprocity, your highlights will be blown. If you base it on highlights and compensate for reciprocity if its necessary (highlights may not be in reciprocity territory), then your shadows will be underxposed. In short, whilst the overall contrast of you neg may look OK, it won't be well exposed for good separation in both highlight and shadow areas.

My advice is to use a low to medium contrast film and expose for the highlights and NOT the shadows when doing night time or concert photography. HP5 is medium contrast and works extremely well for night time photography when exposing for the highlights and not the shadows.

 

[gainer]

Howard Bond, in his research into reciprocity, found the change in contrast to be non-existent or negligible in the films he tested. The Tri-X that has the upswept curve is the TXP 320. The Tri-X that we can get in 35 mm has a pretty straight line well past the range that can be put on paper.

 

[percepts]

I don't care what Howard Bond says in his research. If part of the subject is in reciprocity and part is not then you will get a big increase in contrast across the subject when you meter for either the highlight or the shadows.

If the whole subject is in reciprocity to the same degree then no you won't BUT the vast majority of night time or concert images are not like that so you will get a big increase in contrast. Use a low to medium contrast film and meter for the highlights.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You cannot have reciprocity failure on only part of a negative. The reciprocity failure of a film is the effect of time, not intensity. So, at a given time, some part may be over or under exposed, but the entire negative will suffer from the inherent reciprocity of exposure time!

PE

 

[Matt5791]

Really interesting this thread as I have often found myself swaying towards higher contrast - I very rarely print at gr.1.5 or below, and normally print grade 3 - I just spent the whole day in the darkroom printing off various shots from a wedding and every single one of them I printed on gr.3.

I have often wondered whether a lot of this is personal preference - I like really snappy contrasty prints.

Also I find that, as a general purpose paper, Kentmere VC select suits me far more than Ilford MG IV - I seem to have a much easier time getting the snappy prints I like with the Kentmere.

 

[percepts]

I stand corrected. Something else which I was taught and now I find was incorrect. Should have thought about it more I guess.

 

[dancqu]

The reciprocity failure of a film is the
effect of time, not intensity. PE

The exact opposite of what I've read. Although I'm
not prepared to discuss the subject it does seem
reasonable to me that long exposure times are
the off shoot of low light levels.

Low enough levels of lighting in portions of a scene
can drive those areas into regions of reciprocity
failure regardless of the shutter speed. Dan

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dan, here is more on this then.

In a scene with high and low levels of light with great extremes, the actual reciprocity is dependant on exposure in terms of absolutes. A 1/100th " exposure is inherenly a short time as you can see, and a 10" exposure is a long exposure. But, at either extreme, the picture suffers from LIRF and HIRF in either case (Low Intensity and High Intensity).

The exposure time sets the basis for the reciprocity though, as that is how the film is designed to respond. Most textbooks and tests are arranged to show it that way.

PE