how do you deal with low contrast situations that need more contrast?

RobC said:

If you are using sheet film, then you can use zone system N+1 or N+2 etc, but only if you have tested to find out what your development modifications should be.

Click to expand...

Yes,thats what im planning to do,also with 120 film.
i HAVE TO test my development modifications..N+,(++) is not a big problem(in printing i can still fix on that),but my N- N-- has a lot to improve..
i have every time small loss of imformation in the negative in N--,that i can burn in print,but if there is something in the way(like a three branch,since its usually the sky thats burned out)than i cant without "improving" the three as well.
i have want to make good,optimal negatives,and than its much easier to work in the darkroom..
test coming up soon
Cheers RobC!

jnanian said:

i plan too, thanks
as mentioned i am able to get it to do what i want ( it looks and works like a conventional developer
and it works for me at about 1¢ / roll, sheet, paper/film ) ...
good luck finding something that will work the way you want !

john

Click to expand...

i found the thing that works for me more or less i just need to test my N- but for the rest im okay.of course just in my AMATEUR way
im not a professional photographer,i just happen to have lots of fun with reflecting reality the way i see it.
was just wondering what You Apug Users prefer contrast wise.
Cheers!

monk said:

i found the thing that works for me more or less i just need to test my N- but for the rest im okay.of course just in my AMATEUR way
im not a professional photographer,i just happen to have lots of fun with reflecting reality the way i see it.
was just wondering what You Apug Users prefer contrast wise.
Cheers!

Click to expand...

thats what matters, what way you have found, be you amateur or professional.
the funny thing about professionals and amateurs alike is some
pound their way into others heads so hard insisting their way is the only way that works
and the reality of the situation is that what works for one person probably won't do squat for
someone else, and it really doesn't matter in the end
user-x's water is different, ways or exposing are different ( heck the camera used hasn't has a CLA in 35 years
since it was bought used from a little old lady who only drove it to church on sundays )
agitation scheme is different, eyes are different, judging what exposure is different, what is perceived as "contrast" might even be different, dilution methodology is different.

the only thing that is the same, hopefully, is that both user-x and the person offering advice both have a good time ( and of course what 1 might think
is a good time might be nothing like what the other things is a good time )

sorry i forgot to put YMMV at the end of my posts, that is basically a disclaimer that what works for me probably won't work for you

have a great saturday ( or it may be sunday )

jnanian said:

thats what matters, what way you have found, be you amateur or professional.
the funny thing about professionals and amateurs alike is some
pound their way into others heads so hard insisting their way is the only way that works
and the reality of the situation is that what works for one person probably won't do squat for
someone else, and it really doesn't matter in the end
user-x's water is different, ways or exposing are different ( heck the camera used hasn't has a CLA in 35 years
since it was bought used from a little old lady who only drove it to church on sundays )
agitation scheme is different, eyes are different, judging what exposure is different, what is perceived as "contrast" might even be different, dilution methodology is different.

the only thing that is the same, hopefully, is that both user-x and the person offering advice both have a good time ( and of course what 1 might think
is a good time might be nothing like what the other things is a good time )

sorry i forgot to put YMMV at the end of my posts, that is basically a disclaimer that what works for me probably won't work for you

have a great saturday ( or it may be sunday )

Click to expand...

yes,indeed,everything and everybody is differentim right there with you on that.
im not asking for formulas to use from other people,rather than i would like to hear what different people prefer to use,and why,to learn from it,or open new things,i dont know..
im not saying anything about my way,
or that its profound,it is "the way",im just open to listen to people who would like to tell whats their preference.
to learn from it.
learning is cool!
have a great satur/sun-day!

If the light is really flat I will over expose a stop or two OR use an incident meter reading.

My take is it depends on the prints I want to make.

Sometimes I'll use N+2 or very rarely N+3 development but often in very low contrast I just process and print normally.

Here's some examples made on very foggy days.




Same day



A few years later, Cornwall



same day as above



You need to think before using +/- exposure and processing, is it the right way.

Ian

Sirius Glass said:

If the light is really flat I will over expose a stop or two

Click to expand...

may i ask why dont you expose less and develop a bit more?im here to learn..

Sirius Glass said:

If the light is really flat I will over expose a stop or two OR use an incident meter reading.

Click to expand...

monk said:

may i ask why dont you expose less and develop a bit more?im here to learn..

Click to expand...

1. That is what I have always done.
2. The Hasselblad book by Wilde recommends it.
3. I cannot screw around with N+1, N+2, N+3, ... processing in the middle of a roll or film where 36 or 12 exposures. I leave that for the Zonistas.

Ian Grant said:

My take is it depends on the prints I want to make.

Sometimes I'll use N+2 or very rarely N+3 development but often in very low contrast I just process and print normally.

Here's some examples made on very foggy days.

Same day

A few years later, Cornwall

same day as above

You need to think before using +/- exposure and processing, is it the right way.

Ian

Click to expand...

they turned our really well Ian! (i like fog too)
specially like the first 2
Thanks for showing!

Sirius Glass said:

1. That is what I have always done.
2. The Hasselblad book by Wilde recommends it.
3. I cannot screw around with N+1, N+2, N+3, ... processing in the middle of a roll or film where 36 or 12 exposures. I leave that for the Zonistas.

Click to expand...

i see,with 35mm you certainly have a point there.there is no way to do N+ or- for 1-2 exposures.just if you take several bodies maybe
but to be honest if i would shoot 35mm i wouldnt take more than 1 body with me..(but most of the times more than 1 lens

monk said:

may i ask why dont you expose less and develop a bit more?im here to learn..

Click to expand...

Personally I avoid exposing less than my personally tested norms because it really does reduce the detail available and development won't fix that.

I avoid development changes because, like Sirius, I see it as truly impractical, unneeded (because of VC paper), and because (broken record time) development doesn't fix reduced exposure.

One reason for extra exposure is the get shadow detail up off the film's toe, that improves contrast.

markbarendt said:

Personally I avoid exposing less than my personally tested norms because it really does reduce the detail available and development won't fix that.

Click to expand...

+1

monk said:

i see,with 35mm you certainly have a point there.there is no way to do N+ or- for 1-2 exposures.just if you take several bodies maybe
but to be honest if i would shoot 35mm i wouldnt take more than 1 body with me..(but most of the times more than 1 lens

Click to expand...

It is entirely possible to shoot N+ and N- with a single 35mm SLR. Not very efficiently, but it IS possible.

One merely needs to dedicate the entire roll to each + or - exposure. Fire off the shots needed, rewind the film, and use a leader retreaval tool to get ready for the next time you need to shoot the over- or under-exposed shots. Keep track of each roll, and how far into each one you were when you rewound the film. Advance the film using a small lens aperture and the highest shutter speed on the camera, leaving the lens cap on, to a point 1 or 2 frames past where you were when you rewound the film. Once you fill up the roll, develop as required.


Like I said. Inefficient, but possible.

you can also selenium tone the negatives to boost contrast. to find exactly how much to intensify will take some experimenting so while shooting, take a few extra frames.

markbarendt said:

development doesn't fix reduced exposure.

One reason for extra exposure is the get shadow detail up off the film's toe, that improves contrast.

Click to expand...

i understand.
if you expose shadows (where you want detail) in zone IV and you reduce your exposure with 1/2 stop(for the expanded development)you would still have enough detail there-or?
i might be wrong..

paul ron said:

you can also selenium tone the negatives to boost contrast. to find exactly how much to intensify will take some experimenting so while shooting, take a few extra frames.

Click to expand...

selenium as i sad before is in the "to-do" list

Those are very nice Ian. May I ask what your rational is for 2-stop overexposure in flat light?

scheimfluger_77 said:

Those are very nice Ian. May I ask what your rational is for 2-stop overexposure in flat light?

Click to expand...

I should have made it a bit clearer, all four images were exposed and processed normally. If I'd used N+2 development that's actually quite a boost in contrast by increasing development by around 30-40% and cutting the exposure by around half a stop. I didn't want to boost contrast or I'd lose much of the atmosphere caused by the fog which was very heavy on both occasions.

Ian

monk said:

i understand.
if you expose shadows (where you want detail) in zone IV and you reduce your exposure with 1/2 stop(for the expanded development)you would still have enough detail there-or?
i might be wrong..

Click to expand...

You are mixing concepts.

Concept one-

Camera exposure controls the shadow detail on the film: if you expose more and you get more shadow detail on the negative; if you expose less and you get less shadow detail on the negative, that's it, period, full stop, end of story.

Film development changes don't "fix" reduced exposure. (Broken record time) If you reduce camera exposure, you reduce the shadow detail the film catches. It really is that simple.

Concept two-

Adjusting film development is akin to changing the paper grade during printing. It's a printing adjustment.

If you increase contrast with either film development or paper grade then you get a snappier looking print but less detail from the negative will straight print.

This is where people IMO loose track of what's on the negative because various priorities are competing for exposure levels on the paper. Some shadow detail and some highlight detail is almost always clipped. The placement of say a face at a particular density on the paper can force say some shadow detail that you want to be clipped in the print even when there is plenty of detail on the negative, placing shadow detail specifically can force highlights to be clipped even when there is plenty of detail on the negative. People tend to think that a print accurately represent what's on the negative, it doesn't.

Assuming that:
1. I'm not underexposing my film
2. I've decided how I want the final print to look and N+ something is desired...
I'll use a number of tricks.

Since I shoot sheet film and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool "Zonista," I'll opt for increased development as a first recourse. That said, I hate grain and the pyro developer I use doesn't like to give me extreme expansions, so I rarely develop more than N+1

There are a couple of other tricks I'll use at the exposure stage as well. Using an ND filter, etc., and pushing the film into reciprocity failure can increase contrast and has a look all its own since it stretches the shadow part of the curve more. I like this effect and use it occasionally. Also, depending on the film, a strong filter can increase contrast independent of the effect it has on colors. I find that 320Tri-X gains about an N+1 when shot with a #25 red filter. So, I may use that filter in a scene without saturated colors just to bump the contrast a bit. I also will intentionally overexpose 320Tri-X from time-to-time to get the lower values up off the long toe of this particular film. This will increase overall contrast on the negative a bit, with most of the effect as shadow-value separation.

N+2 for me is N+1 and an increase in paper grade. N+3 usually needs N+1 plus a couple of tricks.

If I end up with a negative that still needs more contrast than I can get with paper grade, I'll bleach-redevelop to get more contrast. That consists of bleaching the negative in a ferricyanide/bromide rehalogenating bleach and then redeveloping in a staining developer like PMK. This adds extra stain density proportionally to the exposure and gives another effective N+1 and is often gratifying when used with unintentionally underexposed negs. I used to selenium tone negatives to increase contrast (an effective N+1/2 or more), but it doesn't work with stained negatives. It is still a viable technique for other negatives and can be done locally as well if one is careful.

If I'm still stymied in the darkroom, I'll switch to a condenser enlarger, use a more-concentrated, higher-contrast developer, add carbonate/BTA to the existing developer, bleach locally, etc., depending on the exact effect I want. (These techniques plus using a lower-contrast developer are good for getting intermediate contrast from graded papers as well.)

In short, having all these options in my toolbox, knowing what they do and what final result I want enables me to use the best tool for the job. As Mark points out above, fine-tuning print contrast has more to do with achieving the desired separation in the mid-tones; this often results in the need for dodging, burning, bleaching to get the desired detail in the higher and lower values, but that's another story.

An aside on exposure: Increasing development can (and usually does) increase film speed a little. By a little, I mean maybe 1/3-2/3-stop at N+1 for many combinations. This can often be ignored. However, I find that my PMK negatives are a lot better if I reduce exposure by 2/3-stop when developing N+1. This is not underexposing, but exposing correctly for the development given. Conversely, more exposure needs to be given for N- developments. I simply use a different E.I. for expansions and contractions (arrived at by testing, of course).

Then there's masking... I'll let others more versed with this technique give you the run-down on that.

Best,

Doremus

If you have a densitometer and this is where I think it's very useful to have one, then its really easy and quick to test films and therefore very easy to have an EI and development time for a 10 stop range, 9, 8,7,6,5 and 4 stop ranges. So instead of doing N+ or N- dev you just measure the subject brighness range with your spot meter and use the appropriate EI and dev.

Using just one film and dev until you have truly mastered it pays dividends. Jumping about all over the place doesn't.

RobC said:

If you have a densitometer and this is where I think it's very useful to have one, then its really easy and quick to test films and therefore very easy to have an EI and development time for a 10 stop range, 9, 8,7,6,5 and 4 stop ranges. So instead of doing N+ or N- dev you just measure the subject brighness range with your spot meter and use the appropriate EI and dev.

Using just one film and dev until you have truly mastered it pays dividends. Jumping about all over the place doesn't.

Click to expand...

The Zone System was not designed to capture the entire Subject Brightness range.That would make for a very flat image indeed.Losing some tonal extremes for the benefit of midtone contrast makes for a more pleasing image.

RalphLambrecht said:

The Zone System was not designed to capture the entire Subject Brightness range.That would make for a very flat image indeed.Losing some tonal extremes for the benefit of midtone contrast makes for a more pleasing image.

Click to expand...

Please see page 50 of the "Negative" and consider. I don't want to get into a discussion about it. Its all been said before. Fact is that everyone interprets the zone system in their own way and many of them are contrived. The zone system has glaring anomalies in what is said by Adams, the examples he cites and the curves he shows. Depending which way you take as gospel, as to how you interpret it and what your resulting conclusions are.

I don't understand the Zone system. But when I look at many of Ansel's pictures, many of the great ones have little or no detail in the shadows. The contrast is what makes the photos "pop" and why I find them so alluring.

I agree with the above comments of the several postings. As Alan said, Ansel Adams used the Zone System to get POP in a print. Getting POP in a low contrast scene is, using the technical jargon, kinda hard.