Is film good in contrasty light?

[Sirius Glass]

For darkroom printing, all one can do is try to get the contrast where the important detail is. There are techniques to optimize the mid tones, and the Zone system on its own doesn't do it.

I don't do digital, but have occasionally played with contrast curves and it is miraculous what can be done sliding contrast up a bit here, down a bit there there...

At the end of the day, the paper only has the range it has. Projected Kodachrome shows what film can capture.

Correct! The Zone System does not adjust contrast on its own. That is why we use variable contrast paper and sometimes use split grade printing with or without dodging and burning.

 

[GregY]

Alan, If you the detail isn't in your negative.... you can't bring it out in the print. Proper exposure and appropriate development then gives you the basis to use the printing tools at your disposal: different papers (multigrade or graded), choice of developers, dodging/burning, bleaching/toning...... to arrive at the print you 'pre-visualized.' Otherwise it's by guess or by golly as to what your print will turn out like.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I expose for the shadows and develop normally and that provides the shadow detail that I want.

Sure, but if you have areas more than five to seven stops brighter than those shadows that still have important details, your T-Max might preserve detail, but at a density you'll never manage to print in the same exposure as those shadows. If you only scan, a good modern scanner can probably do better than that (I'm not a real scanning expert).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, If you the detail isn't in your negative.... you can't bring it out in the print. Proper exposure and appropriate development then gives you the basis to use the printing tools at your disposal: different papers (multigrade or graded), choice of developers, dodging/burning, bleaching/toning...... to arrive at the print you 'pre-visualized.' Otherwise it's by guess or by golly as to what your print will turn out like.

Why can I see the shadow details when I scan the film but you can't print them chemically?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This raises the question. If you can't print them chemically, then wouldn't it pay to scan and print them digitally just to save the shot?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Why can I see the shadow details when I scan the film but you can't print them chemically?

You can, if you expose little enough -- but then you'll sacrifice the highlights, which got too little exposure to build visible density on the paper. A little burning often helps, but not always.

 

[Donald Qualls]

scan and print them digitally just to save the shot?

Blasphemy!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sure, but if you have areas more than five to seven stops brighter than those shadows that still have important details, your T-Max might preserve detail, but at a density you'll never manage to print in the same exposure as those shadows. If you only scan, a good modern scanner can probably do better than that (I'm not a real scanning expert).

The problem is not with modern film, but the lack of latitude of the paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This raises the question. If you can't print them chemically, then wouldn't it pay to scan and print them digitally just to save the shot?

Go sit in the corner and do not come out until you have learned to behave yourself! Also wash you mouth out with lye.

 

[markjwyatt]

This raises the question. If you can't print them chemically, then wouldn't it pay to scan and print them digitally just to save the shot?

One technique is to digitize them at different exposures and then use software HDR to compress the dynamic range. This is only for last ditch cases usually. I have done it with Kodachrome for instance.

e.g.,


Girl Splash by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


Water Truck I15 Construction by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[GregY]

Why can I see the shadow details when I scan the film but you can't print them chemically?

Alan that's what i was trying to explain. You can't see my negatives can you now? I'm saying if i don't expose & develop properly.....then the detail isn't in the negative.(so you couldnt get detail in a scan). It has always been so. IF I expose and develop the film properly then the detail is in the negatives. Ansel Adams wrote entire books about it. If i have a good negative THEN IF I have well developed darkroom skills....I can make a beautiful print with all the shadow detail I want. Any fine printer does the same. I would assume it's the same in the digital world....if you have a poor file....you get a poor print....

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Go sit in the corner and do not come out until you have learned to behave yourself! Also wash you mouth out with lye.

.

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/ashamed-of-mistake-picture-id611990930?k=20&m=611990930&s=612x612&w=0&h=VB6YdogGbzDze-RH-63yTgo06YN5sX2n5Ts4mwjjuOc=

 

[GregY]

Alan.... & don the hair shirt. (100% Analog/Traditional)...... scan that.

 

[awty]

The problem is not with modern film, but the lack of latitude of the paper.

I find glossy paper to give a bit more latitude than matt for shadows.
Hard work getting thin shadow detail into the print but can be done with a lot of practice.
Best to do as you describe and expose for the shadows and just burn in the highlights.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder if the OP has by now made up his mind as to whether a switch to film will confer any advantages to the shadow details in his shots?

If I were an experienced digital shooter and had read all the posts then I rather feel that on balance I'd stick with digital, given the learning and skills required to match, let alone improve on digital shots

Here's an analogy. I race cars for a living and would like to improve my competitive edge on my fellow drivers of the latest similar high tech cars to my own .

No-one can guarantee a switch to an older-technology car will improve my competitiveness but it might. However by the time I learn the different techniques required I may have to accept being less competitive for quite a long period

The risk involved versus the benefit may just be too great for me to want to take

Is that a reasonable analogy?

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

I wonder if the OP has by now made up his mind as to whether a switch to film will confer any advantages to the shadow details in his shots?

If I were an experienced digital shooter and had read all the posts then I rather feel that on balance I'd stick with digital, given the learning and skills required to match, let alone improve on digital shots

Here's an analogy. I race cars for a living and would like to improve my competitive edge on my fellow drivers of the latest similar high tech cars to my own .

No-one can guarantee a switch to an older-technology car will improve my competitiveness but it might. However by the time I learn the different techniques required I may have to accept being less competitive for quite a long period

The risk involved versus the benefit may just be too great for me to want to take

Is that a reasonable analogy?

pentaxuser

Pretty reasonable analogy in some ways. "Switching to film" has more to it than implied. If you're not processing your own film (& aware of all the options there), then you are not in control of your complete workflow. I agree, PU, switching to film is not a bandaid solution to the problem.

 

[khrisrino]

I wonder if the OP has by now made up his mind as to whether a switch to film will confer any advantages to the shadow details in his shots?

If I were an experienced digital shooter and had read all the posts then I rather feel that on balance I'd stick with digital, given the learning and skills required to match, let alone improve on digital shots

Here's an analogy. I race cars for a living and would like to improve my competitive edge on my fellow drivers of the latest similar high tech cars to my own .

No-one can guarantee a switch to an older-technology car will improve my competitiveness but it might. However by the time I learn the different techniques required I may have to accept being less competitive for quite a long period

The risk involved versus the benefit may just be too great for me to want to take

Is that a reasonable analogy?

pentaxuser

I'd say the learning curve appears a bit daunting for sure. I did some reading about zone system, how to develop film and tweak development time to control contrast etc. The underlying principles are quite similar to what's going on in digital via photoshop so its not so difficult to understand for eg N-1, N+1 basically sounds exactly like levels control. Theory is one thing but I can see though how the manual processes may take quite some time. At least I've gained some new appreciation of the principles working behind photoshop. The time commitment makes me less motivated now ... I might sign up for a basic film development class first and go from there.

 

[MattKing]

I might sign up for a basic film development class first and go from there.

We wish you all possible success - and you may very well have some fun too!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan. That's the whole idea. But if you want to expose for the shadows, you have to meter for that and decide just where to place them on the film scale. Then develop for the highlights. Well, sometimes the film won't handle the range, so the Zone System has it's way of doing that, while I have my own preferred methods. Whatever one does, it should complement their own personal vision, and not just some rote procedural ideology.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I might sign up for a basic film development class first and go from there.

That's a good place to start, IMO. I learned to develop film at age 9, so I tend to think of it as easy-peasy -- I do temperature compensation (developer's at 72 F but time on the chart is for 68 F) almost automatically, choose between developers almost without thought , mix my own chemicals as needed, so it's easy to forget the learning curve I traversed bit by bit over decades.

I'd suggest starting film photography as a hobby, a pastime. Get one 35 mm camera, basic developing equipment, and a bulk loader, buy a bulk roll of something like Fomapan 100 ($60 or so, last time I bought one), pick a developer to start with, and pay attention to what you do. Don't worry about Zone at first, just get control of exposure and learn what "normal" negatives look like.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are all kinds of extant threads on techniques like split printing, various papers choices, developer options. Just learn things a step at a time. For most of us, it didn't take long to fall in love with darkroom printing. You've do something tactile, and get something tangible. But it's potentially a lifelong journey, with always something new to learn. Another thing I like about it.

 

[koraks]

For most of us, it didn't take long to fall in love with darkroom printing.

True, that. And it's an experience I'd wish upon anyone who's interested into photography. Preferably with a realistic set of expectations of the challenges involved as well. It makes the experience all the more rewarding in the end.

 

[alanrockwood]

One way to use the zone system with 35mm cameras is to have three camera bodies, one loaded with the intent of contrast enhancement, one with the intent of normal contrast, and the third loaded with the intent of contrast reduction. You would then do the film exposure/development time in the same way you would do it with single sheets, except that now you are doing it with whole rolls of film instead of single sheets.

Low end 35mm bodies are pretty inexpensive these days. Not as inexpensive as they were a few years ago, but not very costly nevertheless. If you are doing landscape photography you really don't need the features of a fancy schmancy high end 35mm camera anyway, so you're not really losing anything useful by using low end 35mm cameras for that application.


Edit: Oops I overlooked the fact that you are using Hasselblad bodies, which partially negates what I said about using three cheap 35mm camera bodies. However, the thought still applies if you can afford three Hasselblad bodies.

 

[tih]

Looking at the OP's example, that sort of scene doesn't really have any midtones, does it? So is there a way, in the darkroom, to remove the midtones from the equation, to end up with normal contrast in the shadows, and normal contrast within the highlights, but having those ranges closer together by having reduced contrast in the midtone range? And this even where the shadows and highlights are so intermixed that you can't selective dodge or burn either?

 

[albada]

Looking at the OP's example, that sort of scene doesn't really have any midtones, does it? So is there a way, in the darkroom, to remove the midtones from the equation, to end up with normal contrast in the shadows, and normal contrast within the highlights, but having those ranges closer together by having reduced contrast in the midtone range? And this even where the shadows and highlights are so intermixed that you can't selective dodge or burn either?

Flashing the paper with blue light and then exposing at grade 5 will achieve a wide exposure-range by producing low contrast in light shades and high contrast in dark shades. That approach might work well in the OP's dark-dominated examples.

Mark Overton