Is N+1 really necessary?

markbarendt · Nov 27, 2011

Doremus Scudder said:
If you key on mid-tones when printing and then adjust contrast to get the snap you want in a print, then the Anchell statement doesn't apply. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Pegging the mid-tones is exactly how I shoot and print because that's where the most important parts of my shots fall. For me the tones surrounding the main subject are simply supporting characters and fully expendable to get the main subject right.

This is driven simply by my choice of style and subject, it is fully personal in nature and took a lot of work to figure that out for myself. Chasing Ansel's ghost taught me a lot but in the end I apply my tools much differently that he applied his.

Bill Burk · Nov 27, 2011

I am better able to judge dodging and burning times when my negative is suited to Grade 2.

I don't believe it is true, but I use the working assumption 1/3 "f/stop" time causes the least noticeable tone change on final print.

By definition, the "f/stop" time to create least noticeable tone change varies with paper Grade.

So at Grade 4, I might have to assume 1/6 "f/stop" would be least noticeable. This means instead of dodging 6 seconds, I would have to dodge 3 seconds (if I thought something should be "a little" lighter). Tolerances are tighter at higher grades.

I prefer working with the more relaxed tolerances that Grade 2 permits.

For me it is harder to control tone on higher grades of paper.

piu58 · Nov 27, 2011

Dismayed said:
piu58 said:

I think it depends on how you approach printing. I was taught to expose my photo paper for the highlights, and to adjust contrast from there. It sounds as if you do the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Yes, I work the other way. But the last step ist fine tunig for the highlights because they are mor improtant for the image.

My method has (for me) at least one advantage: By changing the filtering the minimum time for maximum black changes slowly. Another rule: To get the highligts 1/3 a stop brighter use 15% more magenta. This is handy if you use test strips which a 1/3 a stop apart.

Toffle · Nov 27, 2011

Dismayed said:
piu58 said:

I think it depends on how you approach printing. I was taught to expose my photo paper for the highlights, and to adjust contrast from there. It sounds as if you do the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Very interesting... I love this thread. Keep it coming.
I wasn't "taught", so never had the idea ingrained that you should start a print this way. Thanks, guys.

brian steinberger · Nov 27, 2011

Bill Burk said:
For me it is harder to control tone on higher grades of paper.

I find this as well. If you print at higher grades, say 4 to 5 burning in tends to just make the blacks blacker. The way I work is if I find a negative needs to be printed at grade 4 to 5 I'll burn in areas with a much lower grade filter. Every negative calls for different amounts of filtrations obviously. This is a variation of split grade printing.

Chuck_P · Nov 27, 2011

Dismayed said:
I think it depends on how you approach printing. I was taught to expose my photo paper for the highlights, and to adjust contrast from there.

I agree.

I'm not at all saying it's wrong, but I'll sure say that I don't understand this approach........setting the printing exposure from the other direction, from the shadow or mid-tone end. When you consider that more exposure darkens the highlights and less exposure lightens them, it then becomes the key to the printing the highlights, it's the only real control, in conjuction with dodging, that one has over the final highlight density on the paper. The mid-tone and shadow densities on the paper can be controlled by other means once the highlight printing exposure is arrived at such as filtration or paper grade and choice of developer. Seems backwards and not effecient, but not necessarily incorrect either I guess.

brian steinberger · Nov 28, 2011

I mostly shoot in overcast light and a situation I frequently come across is when I have a shot including some white overcast sky (that later I will want to burn down in the print to show a feeling of overcast). Say I have a white house in the foreground. The white house ideally should be on zone VII, but at this exposure the sky falls on VIII or VIII 1/2. So what I do is place the highlight of the house on zone VI and let the sky fall on zone VII or VII 1/2 at most, and this thinner negative allows easier burning in in the darkroom. It is also easy using split grade printing to dodge out the foreground so that the house is printed up to zone VII. This would be an example of where a scene has normal (N) contrast, but low local contrast. Would anyone handle this scene differently?

piu58 · Nov 29, 2011

> Would anyone handle this scene differently?
Yes, me.
Usually I start with a test strip of the assumed paper gradation, mostly 2. The steps af a difference of 1/3 stop rounded to complete seconds with the help of a metronome.
After developing I am looking for the minimum time of maximum black. This is the starting time for my next strips. Let's assume that time is 16 seconds.
After that I am looking for a strip which shows the house and the sky like I wish to have them. Normally this is another strip and not the one which has the minimum time for maximum black. For each step to shorter times I have to take a paper gradation half a grade harder (for Foma paper: 15% more magenta). Example: If house and sky are right at 13 seconds, this is 1/3 stop lighter and requires paper gradation 2.5. There is no need to change the exposition time if you change the contrast not more than one grade: Minimum time of maximum black changes only slowly with filtering. So I end with 16 seconds and gradation 2.5.

If the difference in gradation is not too large (which requires a second test strip) I usually make a test print. This print looks quite fair in the most situations and is the starting point for fine tuning of highlights, dodging and burning.

Is N+1 really necessary?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency