Judging B&W negatives without contact printing or scanning

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

No I don't make darkroom prints.

What question about grade 3?

 

[MattKing]

No I don't make darkroom prints.

What question about grade 3?

This question about grade #3 paper:

What does #3 paper mean to someone who doesn't print? What do you look for in the negatives?

 

[GregY]

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.

250, I think you're making some broad assumptions. I don't print every image i have on film. Whatever the format, I might be using, i select the image i want to print.... depending on the composition, or the light, or any other number of factors. What makes you think that creates a 'lazy eye'? Since you've made the statement, "you learn a lot from it if you want to learn." Do you care to elaborate?
IMO you learn a lot more from printing.

 

[stam6882]

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.

Correct, it was an quick iPhone shot

 

[Pieter12]

250, I think you're making some broad assumptions. I don't print every image i have on film. Whatever the format, I might be using, i select the image i want to print.... depending on the composition, or the light, or any other number of factors. What makes you think that creates a 'lazy eye'? Since you've made the statement, "you learn a lot from it if you want to learn." Do you care to elaborate?
IMO you learn a lot more from printing.

I don't think 250 meant to make prints of every negative, but to at least make a proof sheet.

 

[GregY]

I don't think 250 meant to make prints of every negative, but to at least make a proof sheet.

Many of us photograph sizes other than 35mm & 120 & don't make contact sheets. I'm challenging his idea that "that simply looking at the negative teaches you nothing important." As in music, a good musician can learn a lot by looking at the score.

 

[MattKing]

Proof sheets are one good way to lend organization to a quantity of negatives. There are a variety of ways to do that, and proof sheets work better for some than others.
I've been using them for decades .

 

[Pieter12]

Many of us photograph sizes other than 35mm & 120 & don't make contact sheets. I'm challenging his idea that "that simply looking at the negative teaches you nothing important." As in music, a good musician can learn a lot by looking at the score.

I still proof 4x5. Don't shoot any larger. But the OP is shooting 120. Obviously, there is a lot you can tell by looking closely at the negative, especially LF. Unless there are obvious faults with the negative, having a proof is easier.

 

[GregY]

I still proof 4x5. Don't shoot any larger. But the OP is shooting 120. Obviously, there is a lot you can tell by looking closely at the negative, especially LF. Unless there are obvious faults with the negative, having a proof is easier.

That is my point that you can tell a lot by looking at a negative. I'm sure there are many photographers who don't make contact sheets. As many things in photography as in life there are many ways to do things. Just because someone does things differently doesn't inherently make them wrong. I only photograph in black & white, but my world is not entirely black & white. I can tell from looking at a negative whether a model's eyes are closed or open, if i like their expression, if i'm happy with the framing. I can see the position of clouds in a landscape or the slant of light, or the position of shadows. I don't need a positive image to see those elements which lead me to want to print an image. Just like photographers who have been working for decades have a pretty close idea about light without automatically pulling out their lightmeter, an experienced printer can have a pretty good idea of an image from looking at a negative.....even more so if he/she has exposed and developed the film themselves.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I am assuming the OP is a beginner. Yes, you can tell by looking at a negative whether a decent print can be made from it, but that is because contrast can be changed over a wide range in the darkroom. An experienced darkroom user can tell a great deal more than that. He can tell what grade of contrast will fit the negative (if the negative is a little too hard or too soft). He can tell if the shadow detail is sufficient or not. But the beginner will have trouble "judging" negatives beyond the most basic level.

 

[250swb]

250, I think you're making some broad assumptions. I don't print every image i have on film. Whatever the format, I might be using, i select the image i want to print.... depending on the composition, or the light, or any other number of factors. What makes you think that creates a 'lazy eye'? Since you've made the statement, "you learn a lot from it if you want to learn." Do you care to elaborate?
IMO you learn a lot more from printing.

I wasn't suggesting you print every image as an 8x10, just a contact sheet, that was actually explicit in what I wrote so I find it hard to understand why you decided to misunderstand? And it doesn't even need to be on paper, it could be a digital contact sheet

For any good photographer a hit rate of two or three shots from a roll of 36 is good going (if they can edit their own pictures and not imagine they are a genius). If you don't believe me look at Bresson's contact sheets, or indeed anybody else who's famous. Because generally speaking MF tends to be slower in operation and more considered maybe two shots from 12 is a good hit rate. So what do those famous photographers do with a roll of developed film, wave it in front of a bulb and pick out the best? Well maybe they do, it isn't unheard of if the job is urgent. But there are 33 other exposures on the roll that are contact printed to learn from, to see where they could have done better by seeing where they failed. In other walks of life it's why sportsmen practice technique, to analyse failure and so get better.

If it helps there is a mammoth book called 'Magnum Contact Sheets' which is exactly as it appears, reproduced contact sheets from photographers in the Magnum photo agency. You'll see the journey to the final image is based on looking at facts, contrasting and comparing images, choosing a couple of tentative winners, then marking up the one to get printed. The final choice is not based on looking at a negative and hoping it's the right one. Analysing your own contact sheet is the photographers equivalent of the sportsman practicing his sport, and while many sportsmen may have said something similar when the golfer Arnold Palmer was asked why he was so lucky his reply was 'the more I practice the luckier I get'. Same in photography.

https://thamesandhudson.com/magnum-contact-sheets-9780500292914

 

[MARTIE]

I think it's all about information. Each set of data, can inform the next data set.
And naturally, we are all free to decide on the, 'how to' and 'whether or not' to use that information.

I've always seen my negatives as an opportunity to assess and learn about my processing. It's not how I saw the scene. It's not how I remember the scene. And, it's not how I imagine the print. But I can 'read' density and contrast in a negative along with any processing issues.

My contact print, on the other hand, is my first encounter with the 'positive' of the 'negative', and generally confirms my processing assessment and assumptions.
Moreover, my contact print is my minds-eye view of the scene, the composition in the viewfinder or on the ground glass. It is more than just a record and it's more than density and contrast. It's a 'mini' print, the birth of an original creation.
I don't believe negatives convey the same sense of vision and meaning, otherwise, why would we take the process further?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This question about grade #3 paper:

Sorry to make it confusing. I;m not interested in the paper per se since I don't darkroom print. I;m wondering what was specific about those negatives that made it easy for him to scan? ( He said: I found that the easiest of my old negatives to scan and print were those that I had to print on #3 paper back in my darkroom days.)

 

[GregY]

I wasn't suggesting you print every image as an 8x10, just a contact sheet, that was actually explicit in what I wrote so I find it hard to understand why you decided to misunderstand? And it doesn't even need to be on paper, it could be a digital contact sheet

For any good photographer a hit rate of two or three shots from a roll of 36 is good going (if they can edit their own pictures and not imagine they are a genius). If you don't believe me look at Bresson's contact sheets, or indeed anybody else who's famous. Because generally speaking MF tends to be slower in operation and more considered maybe two shots from 12 is a good hit rate. So what do those famous photographers do with a roll of developed film, wave it in front of a bulb and pick out the best? Well maybe they do, it isn't unheard of if the job is urgent. But there are 33 other exposures on the roll that are contact printed to learn from, to see where they could have done better by seeing where they failed. In other walks of life it's why sportsmen practice technique, to analyse failure and so get better.

If it helps there is a mammoth book called 'Magnum Contact Sheets' which is exactly as it appears, reproduced contact sheets from photographers in the Magnum photo agency. You'll see the journey to the final image is based on looking at facts, contrasting and comparing images, choosing a couple of tentative winners, then marking up the one to get printed. The final choice is not based on looking at a negative and hoping it's the right one. Analysing your own contact sheet is the photographers equivalent of the sportsman practicing his sport, and while many sportsmen may have said something similar when the golfer Arnold Palmer was asked why he was so lucky his reply was 'the more I practice the luckier I get'. Same in photography.

https://thamesandhudson.com/magnum-contact-sheets-9780500292914

I didn't " decide to misunderstand" ..I have a different point of view than yours & to quote ic-racer:
"In a way I do make proof prints if one considers the initial projection print to be the proof."

There's no question a contact sheet might be valuable for an editor or photographer who's marking cropping etc or making selections before printing a large amount of work. To go back to the OP's question....it was "judging BW negatives without contact printing or scanning" .....rather than rationalizing the way you or others might do it.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry to make it confusing. I;m not interested in the paper per se since I don't darkroom print. I;m wondering what was specific about those negatives that made it easy for him to scan? ( He said: I found that the easiest of my old negatives to scan and print were those that I had to print on #3 paper back in my darkroom days.)

#3 paper tends to be used with negatives that are slightly lower contrast than average.

 

[Pieter12]

#3 paper tends to be used with negatives that are slightly lower contrast than average.

Not that is means much, but I believe Ilford MG prints at #3 without a filter.

 

[snusmumriken]

For any good photographer a hit rate of two or three shots from a roll of 36 is good going (if they can edit their own pictures and not imagine they are a genius). If you don't believe me look at Bresson's contact sheets, or indeed anybody else who's famous. Because generally speaking MF tends to be slower in operation and more considered maybe two shots from 12 is a good hit rate. So what do those famous photographers do with a roll of developed film, wave it in front of a bulb and pick out the best? Well maybe they do, it isn't unheard of if the job is urgent. But there are 33 other exposures on the roll that are contact printed to learn from, to see where they could have done better by seeing where they failed. In other walks of life it's why sportsmen practice technique, to analyse failure and so get better.

If it helps there is a mammoth book called 'Magnum Contact Sheets' which is exactly as it appears, reproduced contact sheets from photographers in the Magnum photo agency. You'll see the journey to the final image is based on looking at facts, contrasting and comparing images, choosing a couple of tentative winners, then marking up the one to get printed. The final choice is not based on looking at a negative and hoping it's the right one. Analysing your own contact sheet is the photographers equivalent of the sportsman practicing his sport, and while many sportsmen may have said something similar when the golfer Arnold Palmer was asked why he was so lucky his reply was 'the more I practice the luckier I get'. Same in photography.

I used to own that Magnum book, but passed it on a few years back. IIRC, there was disappointingly little in it from HCB, in part because - at least early in his career - he cut out the 'keepers' and destroyed the rest of the film. I tried hard to learn from the contact sheets of the other photographers featured, but I don't think anything rubbed off.

I start the process of deciding which negatives are worth taking further when I first hang the film up to dry. I always have, just can't help myself, despite the increased risk of dust.

 

[MattKing]

Not that is means much, but I believe Ilford MG prints at #3 without a filter.

The MGIV paper I'm still using seems closer to the historical #2 grade when printed without a filter.

 

[Romanko]

Anyone has tips on how to evaluate black and white 120 negatives after development with naked eye

This is called visual densitometry. You can get a step wedge (e.g. Stouffer) and visually estimate the density of your negatives by comparing with the step wedge. For your purposes the accuracy should be sufficient.

 

[Bill Burk]

Sorry to make it confusing. I;m not interested in the paper per se since I don't darkroom print. I;m wondering what was specific about those negatives that made it easy for him to scan? ( He said: I found that the easiest of my old negatives to scan and print were those that I had to print on #3 paper back in my darkroom days.)

Ah. Pretty simple. Grade 2 is the “Normal” grade of paper. ASA film speeds were designed around it (so was the Zone System). The idea is that if you develop a film to meet the ASA parameters and it’s a normal scene, and you gave the exposure determined using the ASA speed of the film… Then it would look best on Grade 2 paper.

If you develop the film less, it will not be as contrasty. So instead of thirteen minutes you developed the film for nine, it’s probably going to need a little oomph in the print paper to make the print look as good as the normal negative printed on normal paper.

So that negative developed for nine minutes probably needs the more contrasty Grade 3 paper.

That’s the story. Leica enthusiasts of the 70’s encouraged people to make negatives for Grade 3 or 4 because a miniature negative has improved image quality compared to overexposed and overdeveloped negatives that you might get if you aim for Grade 2..

 

[Craig]

So make a contact sheet of some sort, you learn a lot from it if you want to learn.

What exactly would I learn from a contact sheet that the negative itself couldn't tell me?

If anything, a contact introduces lots of variables that are not present on the negative, such as contrast and exposure. I might reject a image from a contact on the basis of being too dense, when in reality it's the contact sheet that is poorly exposed.

For any film that is more than one image on a contact, the exposure and contrast always has to be a compromise between all the images and correct for none. Same with contrast.

With experience knowing how a negative will print, I have found no need for contact sheets, especially as the format size increases. The one exception is where a contact print is the final print, such as with 8x10 or larger formats.

 

[Pieter12]

What exactly would I learn from a contact sheet that the negative itself couldn't tell me?

If anything, a contact introduces lots of variables that are not present on the negative, such as contrast and exposure. I might reject a image from a contact on the basis of being too dense, when in reality it's the contact sheet that is poorly exposed.

For any film that is more than one image on a contact, the exposure and contrast always has to be a compromise between all the images and correct for none. Same with contrast.

With experience knowing how a negative will print, I have found no need for contact sheets, especially as the format size increases. The one exception is where a contact print is the final print, such as with 8x10 or larger formats.

A contact sheet that is properly exposed will have the film rebate printing black. If your negative exposures are too varied to be able to judge from that, maybe you should be more diligent with your metering and exposure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A contact sheet that is properly exposed will have the film rebate printing black. If your negative exposures are too varied to be able to judge from that, maybe you should be more diligent with your metering and exposure.

Contact print frames are not expensive. Then you need a room that you can make dark, three or four trays and the chemicals to develop the prints.

 

[Pieter12]

Contact print frames are not expensive. Then you need a room that you can make dark, three or four trays and the chemicals to develop the prints.

Don't forget a white light, a timer and a safelight. And a way to wash the prints.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Don't forget a white light, a timer and a safelight. And a way to wash the prints.

And maybe some negatives. Oh, and some light-sensitive paper.