Judging B&W negatives without contact printing or scanning

[Pieter12]

This only sort of works since my office grade scanner tops out at 1200dpi

My Epson V600 photo does just fine for making contact sheets, scanning the negatives in the pages in three passes at 600dpi. I assemble and print them in Photoshop, making individual adjustments to some frames as necessary. It's good enough to judge the overall negatives to print. Plus, I have a database of the contact sheets on my computer, making it easier to locate a particular negative. Of course, all work prints and finals are done in the darkroom.

 

[Bill Burk]

These days you can take a photo of the negative “without” inverting it on your phone and upload the picture of the negative here and ask us about it. You’ll get lots of advice.

“A picture is worth”… well it helps a lot.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Since negatives are only a means to an end, it's very difficult to judge them without making prints.

 

[GregY]

Since negatives are only a means to an end, it's very difficult to judge them without making prints.

if you can surmise what's possible from a middling contact sheet, why not directly from the negative?

 

[stam6882]

These days you can take a photo of the negative “without” inverting it on your phone and upload the picture of the negative here and ask us about it. You’ll get lots of advice.

“A picture is worth”… well it helps a lot.

Here is my test shot. I usually develop my 400TX with HC-110 but first time trying D-76 (1:1, 9.5 minutes). I feel HC-110 tones looks better hence checking.

 

[stam6882]

It was shot with my really old Rolleiflex 3.5b mx-evs (f16, 1/500s).

 

[Augustus Caesar]

if you can surmise what's possible from a middling contact sheet, why not directly from the negative?

Because the contact sheet applies a certain amount of contrast.

 

[GregY]

Because the contact sheet applies a certain amount of contrast.

there's contrast inherent in the negative, non? If you bring a negative to a professional printer, do you think they'll make a contact sheet?.... or just put the negative in the enlarger & start making test strips........

 

[Augustus Caesar]

there's contrast inherent in the negative, non?

Yes, but you cannot tell exactly if the negative will make a good print. A lot of folks over-develop their film. It's only a means to an end. Without experience, it's hard to judge. A negative should look "flatter" (less contrasty) than a print.

 

[Bill Burk]

Here is my test shot. I usually develop my 400TX with HC-110 but first time trying D-76 (1:1, 9.5 minutes). I feel HC-110 tones looks better hence checking.

That is perfect! Development looks great, there’s some specular highlights that are going to print white but they’re appropriate.

I’d have given a bit more exposure only to give a chance for a little texture in the blank background. But your exposure is the “correct” exposure.

You’re good to go.

 

[GregY]

Yes, but you cannot tell exactly if the negative will make a good print. A lot of folks over-develop their film. It's only a means to an end. Without experience, it's hard to judge. A negative should look "flatter" (less contrasty) than a print.

"without experience"......if you've over-developed the film, how will it look on an average contact sheet?

 

[Pieter12]

Just print the damn thing!

 

[GregY]

Just print the damn thing!

Thank You Pieter!

 

[stam6882]

I have a good tip. Use the same film, developer, agitation, time temperature and perfect the highlight and shadow density with trial and error. This may take many films over many months. From then on you can concentrate on composition and the decisive moment.

Yes this is a good tip for me too. I have good and consistent success using 400TX with HC-110. I also want to use Fomapan 100 (due to lower cost) for good sunny days outdoor but have not discovered a good developer with good results yet. I have not been successful with HC-110 with Fomapan 100 (too much contrast and too dense following the Massive Dev Chart) so now switching to D-76 and continue to experiment.

 

[stam6882]

That is perfect! Development looks great, there’s some specular highlights that are going to print white but they’re appropriate.

I’d have given a bit more exposure only to give a chance for a little texture in the blank background. But your exposure is the “correct” exposure.

You’re good to go.

Thanks Bill; this is helpful.

 

[250swb]

The difficulty of cutting out a stage by omitting a contact sheet from the process is that you only print the good ones and don't learn anything from the bad ones. Failure rate is a real thing, and there are a couple of types of failure, those where nothing is right and it's out of focus etc., or it's perfect in every way except composition, and then on top of those two you add the exposure and processing into the mix. I put it to you that simply looking at the negative teaches you nothing important and creates a lazy eye when it comes to assessing your own work. So make a contact sheet of some sort, you learn a lot from it if you want to learn.

 

[koraks]

I’d have given a bit more exposure only to give a chance for a little texture in the blank background. But your exposure is the “correct” exposure.

I would have given considerably more exposure, to be frank. The leaves around the flowers will render solid black the way they are now. I would personally have preferred more shadow detail.

This mostly goes to show that what you need from a negative is kind of personal, too. If the intention here was to render the flowers themselves in a pleasing way while allowing the rest of the scene to drop into the abyss, then the exposure is evidently OK for that purpose.

 

[MARTIE]

Yes this is a good tip for me too. I have good and consistent success using 400TX with HC-110. I also want to use Fomapan 100 (due to lower cost) for good sunny days outdoor but have not discovered a good developer with good results yet. I have not been successful with HC-110 with Fomapan 100 (too much contrast and too dense following the Massive Dev Chart) so now switching to D-76 and continue to experiment.

HC 110 is arguably 'the' most versatile developer on the market, you made a good choice and it would be worth your while persevering with it.

Bear in mind, manufacturing data and MDC info. is only a starting point and the rest is down to you, both the fun and the frustration!

I understand your 'itch' to experiment but there is no 'silver bullet'. And in 'switching' you may end up learning less and paying more in the long run.

Your negatives don't 'lie' and are a physical culmination of your work in the field and in the darkroom and should form the basis for informed change to your materials and practice, if deemed necessary.
The build-up of density and contrast you experienced with foma isn't a mistake or a fault or a processing error or a bad film dev combination.
By 'assessing your negs', see the article above, you will most probably determine that the negatives fall into the overexposed and overdeveloped category. Based on this insight, you can make meaningful changes, so, iso and exposure tweaking, assuming everything is in order camera-wise. And time/temp/dilution/agitation tweaking at the processing end.

This whole exercise has been about the acquisition of knowledge and the gaining of practical experience. The validation of which, will come in the form of incremental improvements to your skills and results.

 

[stam6882]

HC 110 is arguably 'the' most versatile developer on the market, you made a good choice and it would be worth your while persevering with it.

Bear in mind, manufacturing data and MDC info. is only a starting point and the rest is down to you, both the fun and the frustration!

I understand your 'itch' to experiment but there is no 'silver bullet'. And in 'switching' you may end up learning less and paying more in the long run.

Your negatives don't 'lie' and are a physical culmination of your work in the field and in the darkroom and should form the basis for informed change to your materials and practice, if deemed necessary.
The build-up of density and contrast you experienced with foma isn't a mistake or a fault or a processing error or a bad film dev combination.
By 'assessing your negs', see the article above, you will most probably determine that the negatives fall into the overexposed and overdeveloped category. Based on this insight, you can make meaningful changes, so, iso and exposure tweaking, assuming everything is in order camera-wise. And time/temp/dilution/agitation tweaking at the processing end.

This whole exercise has been about the acquisition of knowledge and the gaining of practical experience. The validation of which, will come in the form of incremental improvements to your skills and results.

Very true Martie, I aim to shoot more Fomapan mainly due to cost per film and am trying to tune in my preferred developer at the moment. And this is unlikely HC-110 so trying out D-76 now.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My Epson V600 photo does just fine for making contact sheets, scanning the negatives in the pages in three passes at 600dpi. I assemble and print them in Photoshop, making individual adjustments to some frames as necessary. It's good enough to judge the overall negatives to print. Plus, I have a database of the contact sheets on my computer, making it easier to locate a particular negative. Of course, all work prints and finals are done in the darkroom.

Why three passes at 600?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here is my test shot. I usually develop my 400TX with HC-110 but first time trying D-76 (1:1, 9.5 minutes). I feel HC-110 tones looks better hence checking.

There seems to be a white haze over it when I reversed it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've used this site as a internet reference over the years: Assessing Negatives - ephotozine
It isn't perfect, but it is helpful and usable.
The biggest aid is that when you get in hand a negative of a subject with normal contrast and a normal distribution of tones, and you are able to reasonably easily obtain from it an end result that also shows normal contrast and a normal distribution of tones, you should set that negative aside as a control reference - a "Shirley" negative in old time (Kodak supported) lab parlance.
With such a reference at hand, your visual comparisons will be much better.

That's helpful Matt Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

There seems to be a white haze over it when I reversed it.

I expect that haze is a consequence of how the image arrived on Photrio - most likely a cel phone or digital camera snap of a negative on a backlight, resized and uploaded here.
A question for you Alan - have you made black and white darkroom prints yourself in the past? I ask because I interpreted your question about "Grade 3" as coming from someone who had not done such printing.

 

[Pieter12]

Why three passes at 600?

Because the light panel in the cover is only wide enough to cover 1/3 of a sheet. Works out fine for 120 film.

 

[npl]

Here's an inversion with a little editing to see better throught the haze. Theses quick and dirty scan and edit (I used the snapseed app on my phone, took me seconds) are good enough to have a approximation of how it could look on paper. Here we see that the dark leaves with little details will "merge" with the equally somber background, especially with a high contrast that one may want to use so the white of the petals "pop".

For fomapan 100 (my main film) Xtol, now available as Eco Pro ascorbic acid developer, fomadon excel or Adox XT-3, is great. If you pursue using HC-110, I'm interested in your findings. As the time in the MDC is rather short for dilution b (6min), the solution might to switch to a higher dilution, like H (1:63), start at 12min and subtract 1 minute until it look good.