Judging B&W negatives without contact printing or scanning

[Vaughn]

No better loupe than being extremely near-sighted! I do have a nice Schneider 3x loupe that sees a full 6cmx6cm negative.

I can look at my negatives and invert them into positives in my head. That is really not the best way to describe it, but it is the result of studying my LF negatives intensely over the last 30 years, working with them while learning and refining some alt. printing processes. My brain just equates thin areas of the negative as darkness and dense areas as brightness, but primarily I am mostly concerned with getting the correct level of contrast (quite high), so I got pretty decent at it with my materials/processes.

I do 95% of my editing (I almost wrote pre-editing...gasp!) at the scene and behind the camera -- "working the scene" but not using film to do so. That is influenced by me using LF and ULF cameras for a few decades. Once I set the camera up it rarely gets moved more than a foot or so, and occasionally gets torn down without making an exposure*. Using the Rolleiflex, I do take a few extra images while 'working the scene' than I would with LF.

* And occasionally I find another image by panning the camera 180 degrees.

 

[albireo]

I can look at my negatives and invert them into positives in my head. That is really not the best way to describe it, but it is the result of studying my LF negatives intensely over the last 30 years

Inspecting a 10x8 negative on a white panel must be wonderful. I have never seen a LF negative in the flesh. I'd imagine there's a lot to be learned and enjoyed by just panning a nicely resolving loupe across it.

I do inspect my SF or MF negatives as above but I find the experience purely 'technical', and usually not especially aesthetically enjoyable in itself. Probably different with LF.

 

[GregY]

No better loupe than being extremely near-sighted! I do have a nice Schneider 3x loupe that sees a full 6cmx6cm negative.

I can look at my negatives and invert them into positives in my head. That is really not the best way to describe it, but it is the result of studying my LF negatives intensely over the last 30 years, working with them while learning and refining some alt. printing processes. My brain just equates thin areas of the negative as darkness and dense areas as brightness, but primarily I am mostly concerned with getting the correct level of contrast (quite high), so I got pretty decent at it with my materials/processes.

I do 95% of my editing (I almost wrote pre-editing...gasp!) at the scene and behind the camera -- "working the scene" but not using film to do so. That is influenced by me using LF and ULF cameras for a few decades. Once I set the camera up it rarely gets moved more than a foot or so, and occasionally gets torn down without making an exposure*. Using the Rolleiflex, I do take a few extra images while 'working the scene' than I would with LF.

* And occasionally I find another image by panning the camera 180 degrees.

I also take a few more MF images, (especially if i've travelled to a distant place), but primarily as insurance against damage during processing, or in the case of certain films.... imperfections in the emulsion. In LF i'll process one sheet and not the one on the other side of the holder (the insurance image).....often i never process that one.

 

[Vaughn]

The 11x14 negatives are a lot of fun, too...

Being near-sighted, I can pan across the neg without the loupe. All my printing is by contact, so judging the negative is done on a one-to-one basis, which might make it a little easier. Images can change dramatically depending on the print size. For example, a small informationless shadow (or highlight) on the 5x7 may not work four times the size on a 11x14.

Greg - I do the same, but develop both...alt printing processes (in my hands) can be hard on negatives, so it is nice to have a back-up.

 

[ic-racer]

I use this wide field 8x Kenko loupe. I find looking at the negatives with a magnifier is the best way for me to tell which ones are going to make good enlargements.