How good can it get when we mix different contrast scenes using box speed?

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm tempted to try it.
I'm thinking of using one camera just for that, for some time, one or two years, just to see how well can MG paper and MG filters (and films) handle all types of contrast these days with a single development time... For wet printing...
I'm about to believe it's possible, decent from the point of view of tonality... Am I dreaming too much?
Has someone done it lately? I have not in maybe 20 years... I feel MG paper is a lot better now than in the 90's...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Every print is handled on it own attributes. There is no one size fits all.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

It has been a very long time for me. But I would shoot many degrees of contrast exposures with my old sr-T101. I always tried to go by the old adage and expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Produced some wonderful negatives. Varying contrast negs often on the same roll. wet printing took care of the rest.

In short, go for it and see just what you are capable of. And then, as always, share with us all.

 

[MattKing]

As good as it gets.

 

[MattKing]

If you take a look at my contact proof sheets from roll films, you will frequently see just that situation. Variable contrast paper and the appropriate printing techniques can generally result in highly usable prints of each negative.
Whether every negative is deserving of printing is another question.
For particularly demanding subjects and lighting, it helps to fine tune exposure and development, but rarely is it absolutely necessary.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The trick to doing what you want is to find a standard developing time that gives you a contrast index right in the middle between the two extremes of the subjects you shoot. That is eminently doable. Sure, there will always be that tricky situation where you might want to bracket or even develop differently (think keeping dark interior detail as well as detail in a sunlit scene out the window...), but if you can find that sweet spot developing 90+% of your negatives will be handled by the variation present in VC papers.

So, keep good field notes and if you find you're having problems with one extreme or the other, tweak your developing time in the appropriate direction. Soon, you'll zero in on a time that works best for you.

And, be sure to give adequate exposure in contrastier-than-usual situations if you're using an averaging or in-camera meter (e.g., overexpose a stop or two using exposure compensation), or base your exposure on a shadow value à la Zone System.

That's what I would do when shooting roll film.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Saganich]

Success depends on how picky you aren't.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Matt, Doremus, I'm so glad to hear that!
I'll try it...
I started thinking it should be possible because I've been working at 640 with MQ developers (ISO400) and this is what I do some time ago: for soft light and when light is normal contrast (bright, no hard shadows, up to one stop and a third below direct sunlight) I expose at 640 (that's 1/2000 f/8) and when middle or dark shadows appear, I use the same speed and f-stop to fill the shadows a little bit... Highlights don't get damaged...
So yesterday I thought oh my that's really close to working at box speed mixing scenes and trusting the multigrade system...
This is no doubt interesting and unexpected... These materials are impressive these days.

 

[Lachlan Young]

XP2 Super. And sensible metering. That's all.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

XP2Super is a great film, for sure...
Next time I order film I'll get XP2 Super in 120 to try it inside my EI640 use for the first time... 30 more seconds in C-41 might do it well...
Back to the box speed use of classic film, what Doremus said about "being in the middle" is the same way I see things...
I wonder if someone has found a good idea to give sunny scenes a little more exposure: underrate a stop...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If I were only shooting 35mm film, I'd shoot it at an EI that works for me, give ample exposure, and develop in D-23 1+3, or DD-23. Box speed never gives me satisfying results. For 120, I'll shoot an entire roll of the same scene, and give it appropriate development. I do have more than one back for the RB, but I prefer to stick in other films, like IR for example.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If I were only shooting 35mm film, I'd shoot it at an EI that works for me, give ample exposure, and develop in D-23 1+3, or DD-23. Box speed never gives me satisfying results. For 120, I'll shoot an entire roll of the same scene, and give it appropriate development. I do have more than one back for the RB, but I prefer to stick in other films, like IR for example.

Hi, Andrew... By the way, I use LF and MF too... And I've been developing for scene's contrast for 25 years... I always appreciate a lot your precise posting here, so please let me ask you, without any interest in discussion, but only in learning from your experience and opinion: do you mean that, for direct sunlight? I do sun (with a camera that's used just for sun) at EI 100-200 for ISO400, with a short development time... I ask because I find -for wet printing- I need no more shadow detail than EI640 for overcast light, with standard developers, and I even go all the time to EI1250 for the same soft light when I use TMY-2 and HP5+ in FX-39 and Microphen: even at that high speed fine detail and tonality are great... My common use for filters (soft light negatives) is 3 1/2 when I'm at EI640 and 2 1/2 when at EI1250...
My main reason for using more EI640 (less EI1250 lately) for the last two years, is far from tone or sharpness or grain: they're all OK at both EIs... My reason is, at EI640 I can -with more decency- include a sunny scene in a soft light roll, and give it a less undecent development...
Incident metering for direct sunlight at EI640 is 1/2000 f/11.3, so when I do sun using 1/2000 f/8, as I do in those emergency street cases when I don't have my sun camera around, it means I expose sun at EI250, which isn't bad... Of course I'm having high contrast because of the soft light development time...
So, what I'm doing is close to box speed: only two thirds of a stop away, 640 instead of 400... If I do the same I do now with my system, but at box speed, all I'd do would be filling my sunny scenes' shadows a bit more... That's fine... So I feel it could be done...
Couldn't it be, as Matt says, box speed gives us very good options for MG printing? Or as Doremus says, box speed can be well used because it's a film's middle point?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi, Andrew... By the way, I use LF and MF too... And I've been developing for scene's contrast for 25 years... I always appreciate a lot your precise posting here, so please let me ask you, without any interest in discussion, but only in learning from your experience and opinion: do you mean that, for direct sunlight? I do sun (with a camera that's used just for sun) at EI 100-200 for ISO400, with a short development time... I ask because I find -for wet printing- I need no more shadow detail than EI640 for overcast light, with standard developers, and I even go all the time to EI1250 for the same soft light when I use TMY-2 and HP5+ in FX-39 and Microphen: even at that high speed fine detail and tonality are great... My common use for filters (soft light negatives) is 3 1/2 when I'm at EI640 and 2 1/2 when at EI1250...
My main reason for using more EI640 (less EI1250 lately) for the last two years, is far from tone or sharpness or grain: they're all OK at both EIs... My reason is, at EI640 I can -with more decency- include a sunny scene in a soft light roll, and give it a less undecent development...
Incident metering for direct sunlight at EI640 is 1/2000 f/11.3, so when I do sun using 1/2000 f/8, as I do in those emergency street cases when I don't have my sun camera around, it means I expose sun at EI250, which isn't bad... Of course I'm having high contrast because of the soft light development time...
So, what I'm doing is close to box speed: only two thirds of a stop away, 640 instead of 400... If I do the same I do now with my system, but at box speed, all I'd do would be filling my sunny scenes' shadows a bit more... That's fine... So I feel it could be done...
Couldn't it be, as Matt says, box speed gives us very good options for MG printing? Or as Doremus says, box speed can be well used because it's a film's middle point?

The bottom line is, you do what works for you. For me I found if I give ample exposure (I metre at 250 with HP5) for the shadows, and soft develop in a compensating developer, like D-23 1+3, I end up with negatives that are easier to print them if I just gave them all normal exposure, and normal development in say Xtol 1+1. My contact sheets look quite flat as expected. There's always a few exposures in there they went sideways. VC papers help compensate the varying degrees of contrast. As stated earlier, sometimes I prefer to just run a while roll of film of the same scene through the camera, with various exposures, and develop normally.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The trick to doing what you want is to find a standard developing time that gives you a contrast index right in the middle between the two extremes of the subjects you shoot. That is eminently doable. Sure, there will always be that tricky situation where you might want to bracket or even develop differently (think keeping dark interior detail as well as detail in a sunlit scene out the window...), but if you can find that sweet spot developing 90+% of your negatives will be handled by the variation present in VC papers.

So, keep good field notes and if you find you're having problems with one extreme or the other, tweak your developing time in the appropriate direction. Soon, you'll zero in on a time that works best for you.

And, be sure to give adequate exposure in contrastier-than-usual situations if you're using an averaging or in-camera meter (e.g., overexpose a stop or two using exposure compensation), or base your exposure on a shadow value à la Zone System.

That's what I would do when shooting roll film.

Best,

Doremus

I don't have a darkroom and scan my negatives and chromes. Basically that how it works for me. I try to keep the exposure down the middle so I'm not clipping at either end. Then I can raise or lower the exposure, contrast, etc to my liking afterward. Of course, if the range of stops is higher than the film can handle, I'll lean to the side of not clipping whites on chromes and not clipping shadows on negative film.