Bill Burke and Michael R,
Thanks, glad the low placement idea makes sense to you.
I don't want to add to the length of this thread, but just let me say that I just found a logical, zone system level reason why what I am suggesting has to work. It's simply that the contrast of both the normally exposed, high value on VIII, (neg density about 1.4) neg, and the neg with the high value on VI (neg density about 1.0) is the same because both exposures are entirely on the film straight line. Therefore they both will need the same paper contrast for their prints to be the same, but with less print exposure for the thinner, lower placement negative. Most important, the reduced grain of the lower placement is the only variable. Since there is some grain reduction with lower density exposures, there has to be a grain reduction in the print. I hope this is clear. If not, maybe it's better to personal message me so I don't bog this thread down with another repetition.
Whether this moderate grain reduction is helpful in a particular case, or if it fits the photographers desires is another matter. Some people want more grain, not less. And TMX is inherently so fine grained that the improvement is small, only visible at high enlargement ratios and in smooth toned areas, notoriously clouds.
Tell you what though, if I were still using 35mm black and white film, I would try this method with 3 exposures. One with the high zone on VIII, and then simply cutting the exposure by one stop and by two stops for 2 more frames. This with speed and development tested film so I knew Zone VIII was producing 1.4 density and Zone 1 was producing 0.16 density, both including film base plus fog. That means the film speed is right and the film development time is right. Then I'd develop those negs along with the normal exposed one. Find a paper grade that prints the standard neg well, and use that grade to print the two reduced exposure negs. Print them all at 11 X 14 enlarger height, adjusting print exposure so they all matched, compensating for the thinner, lowered placement neg densities.
Then, look at the grain, prints side by side. I'd expect to see some slight reduction in smooth toned areas like white cloud banks with the one stop higher neg, and a solid bit more in the two stop higher neg. Easy to do with roll film, negs are stripped together, developed together and there you are. But I'm not going to do this experiment because I'm all set up and tested for 4 X 5 and that's all I use. Someone trying to make 11 X 14 range landscapes with clouds from 35mm, or 16 X 20 from 120 film might find it very useful, I don't know.
Michael R, nice to hear someone mention Henry. Haven't looked at his book in decades, but you inspire me to check it again, now that I've learned at least something. And what about David Kachel? I have a binder full of his remarkable articles. Haven't looked at them in decades either. He invented and proved a raft of methods to reduce or increase contrast without affecting film speed. Post exposure stuff. Very, very specialized. The few of his methods I tried years ago worked perfectly, but I never had need to use them. I'll glance at these again too just in case.
Best, Todd F.
