How to distinguish an under developed negative?

[Mahler_one]

Marc....great minds think a-like....:}

 

[MattKing]

Originally Posted by MattKing
... 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.

Don:

I agree with you. In order to have been more clear, I ought to have emphasized the word significantly or, alternatively, replaced it with radically or something similar.

Matt

 

[el wacho]

a proper proof should retrospectively inform you of your exposure ( shadows ) and highlights ( development ).

 

[Ronald Moravec]

They are underdeveloped if the blacks print correctly, but the whites are grey. They are overdeveloped if the whites are blocked up and show no detail.

Exposure controls the detail in the blacks. Use the minimum exposure to get detail in the dark tones, no more. With properly calibrated cameras and meters, box speed is correct

 

[Anscojohn]

a proper proof should retrospectively inform you of your exposure ( shadows ) and highlights ( development ).

************
Yup.

 

[stradibarrius]

If the shot is taken against a "black background" will the negative look thin in the black area? As in this example...

 

[keithwms]

Hey, you're getting there! Looks good. I like the idea of mirroring the curves. I also like the tight shadow. I am not so wild about the doubling effect in the reflection but you can fix it. Keep it up, it's getting there! Rememebr that quote from E. Weston, who worked very hard to balance his shells...something like: woe unto anyone who disturbs my shells before I take the photograph

Regarding tones, it's hard to judge on my (uncalibrated) screen, but I think they can be improved when you print.

 

[stradibarrius]

Keith, you know I am copying you with this shot! the double reflection I think is the camera is seeing both side of the clear glass????
My question is will the negative in the dark shadow area be thin???? I hope you say yes.....

 

[keithwms]

Yes it will. You don't want it to be completely blank of course, but it will definitely be much thinner than the highlight areas.

You might be able to kill the second reflection by putting a layer of water between the glass and the table. Maybe. There are magic angles....

 

[CBG]

Well, that is not black, but dark gray, so it should be "fairly" thin - nearly clear - but still a little density and a little detail.

If your negatives are very substantially underdeveloped, even a "Human Densitometer" will be able to say so. Slight variations are the province of more precise instrumentation. Printing them tells all.

Please note that all the advice so far has referred to the most widely used interpretation of what a normal negative should look like, where the negative recieves just enough exposure to attain the tonalities desired. Some workers, many large format shooters among them, bump up exposure to some degree, to get shadow detail a bit higher up the characteristic curve. I am not talking vast extra exposure.

There are exceptions. A very - very - few deliberately expose quite a bit heavier to get an all over notably darker negative. I think I remember that Ralph Gibson did that. Somewhat different tonalities result I think, as well as exaggerated grain, and I suspect much more demanding to print.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

They are underdeveloped if the blacks print correctly, but the whites are grey. They are overdeveloped if the whites are blocked up and show no detail.

Exposure controls the detail in the blacks. Use the minimum exposure to get detail in the dark tones, no more...

agreed

...With properly calibrated cameras and meters, box speed is correct

I don't think so. Film speed is not a calibration issue. Film speed is an individual requirement and processing issue combined with emulsion characteristics.

 

[MattKing]

If the shot is taken against a "black background" will the negative look thin in the black area? As in this example...

One caution ...

When we talk about target densities (thin or thick) we want to be paying attention to those parts of the subject that have important detail in them.

If we want something to be displayed as an un-detailed black shadow, we don't care if there is no detail there, so whether or not that section of the negative is 1, 2 or 10 stops underexposed doesn't matter.

If we want something to be displayed as an un-detailed bright highlight (like a specular reflection), we don't care if there is no detail there, so whether or not that section of the negative is 1, 2 or 10 stops overdeveloped doesn't matter.

For your example, it looks to me that you would most likely want detail everywhere, so this issue may not come up. For something else, it could be quite important.

Matt