How to distinguish an under developed negative?

[stradibarrius]

Yesterday I have a professional film photographer look at some of my negatives and he immediately said they were under developed. The printing in the margins was still gray opposed to being black.
So that makes me feel like I need to back up a step or two and find out how to tell if I underdeveloped my negatives.

Is there a way to tell oris it like most things in photography..."it depends"?

 

[SilverGlow]

How long did you dev for, which developer, temp, how frequent did you agitate? Do you think your issue came out of film dev or print dev?

That's a good question you pose...not long ago I shot Kodak Plus-X 100 ISO and although the negatives look great, the margin markings were nearly faded....makes me wonder if this is just a Plus-X thing or if my negatives are severely under developed. I used F76, 5.5 minutes, 68F, agitated every 30 seconds....I'm perplexed why the margin factory markings nearly invisible....hmmm....if it matters I shot with EC of 2+ stops on an over cast mid day shoot.....

 

[Anscojohn]

If it is 35mm, check a part of the developed exposed leader. It shiould be pretty darn black.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Weak rebate numbers may be a sign, but they don't have to be. A proper film test will tell all, but without changing your development scheme, check the following:

1. Put a scene together from deep black to bright white (black felt, gray card, white cloth).
2. Evenly illuminate it, measure it with an incident meter (or on the gray card) and take a picture of it.
3. Develop normally, expose the paper for the shadows to be right while printing on a grade-2 paper.

Skip step 1 & 2 if your negatives already picture such a scene. Now, ask yourself, are the highlights gray (underdeveloped film), too bright (overdeveloped film) or just right?

By the way, I made myself a Zone Cube to simulate such a 'perfect' scene (picture attached).

 

[MattKing]

The edge printing on negatives isn't a particularly reliable measure of development. I'm not sure why, but the density seems to vary considerably.

I have some (admittedly expired) T-Max 100 from a bulk roll where the edge markings are quite faint, but the negatives themselves show a full range of tones and good contrast, despite a wide range of lighting conditions.

Do your negatives show a wide range of densities? Are the areas in your negatives that correspond to the highlights in your subjects sufficiently dense to yield bright areas in your prints with both detail and contrast? If so, your negatives are not underdeveloped.

Matt

 

[Anscojohn]

The edge printing on negatives isn't a particularly reliable measure of development. I'm not sure why, but the density seems to vary considerably.

*******
I was told, years ago, that the edge printing density for each emulsion batch is a standard for each batch and which is supplied to photofinishing labs. As such, (and if true) I guess it would be a rough guide.

 

[CBG]

As far as development goes, what really matters is whether your highlights have enough density to print or scan the way you want.

That is assuming you have well exposed images. With enough exposure to give you the detail you need in shadow, you have a good start. Too little information in shadows tells you you are probably underexposed. If your shadows are right, then highlight printability tells you how appropriate your development is. Overexposure will give you negs that are heavy everywhere.

 

[Chuck_P]

Weak rebate numbers may be a sign, but they don't have to be. A proper film test will tell all, but without changing your development scheme, check the following:

1. Put a scene together from deep black to bright white (black felt, gray card, white cloth).
2. Evenly illuminate it, measure it with an incident meter (or on the gray card) and take a picture of it.
3. Develop normally, expose the paper for the shadows to be right while printing on a grade-2 paper.

Skip step 1 & 2 if your negatives already picture such a scene. Now, ask yourself, are the highlights gray (underdeveloped film), too bright (overdeveloped film) or just right?

By the way, I made myself a Zone Cube to simulate such a 'perfect' scene (picture attached).

Ralph,

What a cool idea......the zone cube.

 

[Mahler_one]

That's a clever idea Ralph....one might easily use the "cube" to test exposure and development relatively quickly when contemplating the use of a "new" film. Do you have the design of the Zone Cube in your new book?

Ed

 

[2F/2F]

If your exposure is correct (meaning that you properly used an incident light meter ), and you find yourself printing on grade 3 or higher paper/filters for shots that were taken in normal-contrast light, then your negatives are underdeveloped.

Normal-contrast light is what I say to mean a luminance range (from the darkest object to the lightest object that fall within the composition) that exactly matches your paper's range from black to white. A normal exposure in this situation, printed normally, should cause the darkest object to be printed as maximum black, and the brightest object to be printed as maximum white.

Underdevelopment can be confused with underexposure. Both can look the same in the midtones and high tones. In a normal contrast composition, the low tones will be the telling sign as to how good your exposure was.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That's a clever idea Ralph....one might easily use the "cube" to test exposure and development relatively quickly when contemplating the use of a "new" film. Do you have the design of the Zone Cube in your new book?

Ed

The idea is not new and it is not mine, but this implementation (Zone Cube) is, and it works well for the purpose you suggest. It did not fit into the current edition of Way Beyond Monochrome. Maybe next time .

 

[removed account4]

Weak rebate numbers may be a sign, but they don't have to be. A proper film test will tell all, but without changing your development scheme, check the following:

1. Put a scene together from deep black to bright white (black felt, gray card, white cloth).
2. Evenly illuminate it, measure it with an incident meter (or on the gray card) and take a picture of it.
3. Develop normally, expose the paper for the shadows to be right while printing on a grade-2 paper.

Skip step 1 & 2 if your negatives already picture such a scene. Now, ask yourself, are the highlights gray (underdeveloped film), too bright (overdeveloped film) or just right?

By the way, I made myself a Zone Cube to simulate such a 'perfect' scene (picture attached).

great advice !

btw

the zone cube is one of the coolest things i have seen ...

john

 

[fschifano]

Rebate markings are unreliable for determining anything concerning the strength of the developer, or whether development is over or underdone. I've seen densities all over the place with film of the same brand but from different production batches. I've been able to rule out differences in developer strength as a variable. Different production batches of the same film in the same tank at the same time showed extreme variability in the density of the rebate markings. There was no question that there was enough developer in the tank to cover all the film with plenty of space left over.

Determining whether or not you're developed your negatives well is fairly easy. A well exposed and developed negative of a front lit scene of average luminance should print well on a grade 2 paper or on variable contrast paper with no filter. If it does, you're good. If it's flat looking and lacks sparkle, it's underdeveloped. If the contrast is too harsh, then it's overdeveloped.

 

[Mike1234]

I like that cube, Ralph. Is that an original idea? If so... pretty brilliant!!

 

[Lee L]

Commercial version of a Zone Cube:
http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-cb-spydercube.php#

Promoted mostly as a digital tool, but obviously works well for film.

Available at B&H and elsewhere.

I like Ralph's version.

Lee

 

[df cardwell]

Yesterday I have a professional film photographer look at some of my negatives and he immediately said they were under developed. The printing in the margins was still gray opposed to being black./QUOTE]

Congratulations, you met The Human Densitometer. Sadly, having a guy look at the negs is totally unreliable.

I just read the little arrows on some Kodak film that was processed today. TMX= .15, TMY2= .40. Is that bad ?

The image is perfectly developed. Maybe there isn't a correlation between the marginal numbers and the image development ?

Without seeing your image, it is impossible to judge what is going wrong. Based on published curves, and my own experience with Xtol and Neopan 400, you can do everything right and still get gray negs. The shoulder at 1.2 or so means that if you have over exposed the film by a small amount you've pushed the highlights into a part of the negative that is trying desperately to compress what you want to expand.

Neopan and Xtol. Barry, it's kind like trying to build a fiddle out of cardboard instead of maple.

 

[MattKing]

It occurs to me that one reason for the variation in edge marking densities may be the time that elapses between exposure and development.

Edge markings are exposed at the time the film is "finished". That may be years before you expose the rest of the film and years before you develop the film.

I'll disagree a little bit with df cardwell - if development is significantly off, an experienced eye using a good loupe should be able to note the problem. If development is only off a little, one needs to print the negative to tell (although a densitometer plus knowledge of the original subject may show it too).

Matt

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Look in the image area to determine if it is underdeveloped, not the edge markings. I've also read that the edge markings are an unreliable way to determine development.

Is there detail in the shadow areas? If so, then you are probably giving enough exposure.

Do you have to use grade 4 or 5 paper to make a print? If so, then you are probably underdeveloped.

Kodak B&W printing booklets used to have a nice set of images of negs that had been under/over exposed and under/over developed so you could see all the different combinations at one time.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I like that cube, Ralph. Is that an original idea? If so... pretty brilliant!!

Thanks. Unfortunately, not my idea, but a cost-effective home-made version with some improvements added to the commercial versions out there. The Spyder Cube by Datacolor was mentioned, but it is very small. By the way, that was not the original idea either. These things have been around for some time. A photographic professor in New York presented one decades ago.

I was ask to post something about it and will do so soon.

 

[df cardwell]

... if development is significantly off, an experienced eye using a good loupe should be able to note the problem. Matt

I used to think I could do that. I can't. Only printing can determine whether there was correct development.

The problem is the small difference between being right on, and being a little bit off. The problem is compounded using a film & developer that make a strong shoulder. The Foto Import curve below shows Neopan 400 and 1+2 Xtol, with agitation every 30 seconds. It is very similar to the 1+1 curve, and is consistent with my own results.

I drew the red line over the curve. It is an arc. It shows that Neopan in Xtol is nearly ALL SHOULDER. Beginning at Zone IV, it takes progressively more exposure to raise the Neopan image density. In other words, the higher up the scale, the LOWER the contrast. It takes 2 stops of exposure to get from Zone II to Zone IV. To raise Zone VII to IX, it takes 3 stops. It takes 4 stops of exposure to go from Zone VIII to X.

If this is the case, there is no way to assess the problem without knowing the characteristic of Neopan and Xtol.

 

[stradibarrius]

In all of my reading I had never read where looking at the rebates is an accurate way to judge the quality of the negative. There is another thread at APUG about problems of being self taught. Learning to evaluate your negatives is such a basic thing, it would seem, and probably one of the first things taught in a formal class but if you have had no formal training then you learn from the people you your are able to access.
Horenstein has what seems to be a good way to evaluate negatives by looking in the shadows for detail and still have some density in the highlights???

 

[Bruce Watson]

As far as development goes, what really matters is whether your highlights have enough density to print or scan the way you want.

That is assuming you have well exposed images. With enough exposure to give you the detail you need in shadow, you have a good start. Too little information in shadows tells you you are probably underexposed. If your shadows are right, then highlight printability tells you how appropriate your development is. Overexposure will give you negs that are heavy everywhere.

+1

 

[Mahler_one]

Don't forget Phil Davis's method of approximating densities without a densitometer....place the negative, emulsion side down, on a newspaper. Read the type through the highlight densities. If the type " shows clearly and you can read the words without difficulty, the density if probably less than 0.8. If the type is visible, but not easily readable, the density if between about 0.8 and 1.0. A density of more than about 1.2 will obscure the type completely."

 

[marcmarc]

If you have adequate shadow detail then your negs are properly exposed. What is adequate? That's your choice. Now for the highlights, the very unscientific way for checking them I picked up was to lay the negative on a white page with black printed lettering. You should be just barely able to make out the words in the dense parts of the negative. If you cannot, the neg is over developed; likewise if you can easily seen the words your neg is under developed. One thing I realized in this regard is that if one has to keep burning in many areas of many prints, then they are over developing and if they keep having to do lots of dodging, then they are underexposing.

 

[marcmarc]

LOL! I see Mahler was quicker then me!