Judging B&W negatives without contact printing or scanning

[stam6882]

Anyone has tips on how to evaluate black and white 120 negatives after development with naked eye without going through scanning or printing? For 135 format, looking at the density of the film leader seems to be a good option but 120 has no leader. What about the film markers left on the negative and what would be considered as good density after development just by looking at the film right after development?

 

[chuckroast]

You can use a loupe to ensure that there is detail in the highlights and also in the shadows. That means that the negative isn't so thin that the shadows are completely clear, and it's not so thick that the highlights are solid, featureless black. You can also check for sharpness and grain with a loupe.

But that won't tell you a lot about the tonal relationships in the overall image. It's also very difficult to judge things if you're using a staining developer like PMK or Pyrocat.

A quick way to get an idea of what the image looks like is to photograph the negative on a light table (about $15 on Amazon) using your cell phone or other digital camera, and then inverting it in software.

 

[ic-racer]

I stopped making B&W contact proof prints in 1979. I use a light table and loupe.

It is indeed difficult to determine tonal scale because contemporary B&W negatives are processed to a gamma of less than one.

A good negative is NOT the inverse of a B&W transparency. It will have less contrast and not fully reveal itself until the time of printing.

In a way I do make proof prints if one considers the initial projection print to be the proof.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you bracket like I do in medium format, I scan flat to get a better comparison.

 

[koraks]

Anyone has tips on how to evaluate black and white 120 negatives after development with naked eye without going through scanning or printing?

Any form of visual inspection relies on having considerable experience in printing or scanning to make sense of what you see.

 

[JerseyDoug]

When I started printing 60 odd years ago my mentor had me look at my negatives on a light table after I printed them to see what those that printed easily on #2 paper looked like. After several months of doing that he turned it around and had me look at the negatives first and try to predict which would print easily on #2 paper. To this day when I look at my old negatives the "easy" ones just look right.

When I switched to scanning and inkjet printing (due to living for a while with two people and three cats in a 12' by 16' home) 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.

 

[MARTIE]

I'm curious to know, what your goal of 'evaluation' is?

If it's simply to know if your negatives are well exposed, then it should be fairly self-evident.
If it's for general printing purposes, then having a reference sheet of negatives could be helpful.
If it's for specific printing purposes, then you won't truly know until you contact or proof print.

In any event, scribble processing notes on your neg. files.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I started printing 60 odd years ago my mentor had me look at my negatives on a light table after I printed them to see what those that printed easily on #2 paper looked like. After several months of doing that he turned it around and had me look at the negatives first and try to predict which would print easily on #2 paper. To this day when I look at my old negatives the "easy" ones just look right.

When I switched to scanning and inkjet printing (due to living for a while with two people and three cats in a 12' by 16' home) 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.

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm curious to know, what your goal of 'evaluation' is?

If it's simply to know if your negatives are well exposed, then it should be fairly self-evident.
If it's for general printing purposes, then having a reference sheet of negatives could be helpful.
If it's for specific printing purposes, then you won't truly know until you contact or proof print.

In any event, scribble processing notes on your neg. files.

Where could I get a reference sheet of negatives for Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 where the exposure is perfect?? Does anyone sell like three sheets for two that would be over and under exposed a little as well as normal?

 

[MARTIE]

You'd have to make your own, based on your materials and processes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Where could I get a reference sheet of negatives for Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 where the exposure is perfect?? Does anyone sell like three sheets for two that would be over and under exposed a little as well as normal?

A reference is needed and the poster provided a commonly used reference.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

Why? If you bothered to take the photo, go ahead and at least make a contact sheet. If they are others' negatives, make a contact sheet anyway. B&W film has tons of latitude and you can make a decent print from all but the grossly over or under exposed or badly processed or damaged negatives. Inspection might give you information about exposure, but may not readily reveal the subject or composition.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why? If you bothered to take the photo, go ahead and at least make a contact sheet. If they are others' negatives, make a contact sheet anyway. Inspection might give you information about exposure, but may not readily reveal the subject or composition.

I make a contact sheet at grade 2 or 3, depending on the weather, when I got up and the phase of the Moon. That gives me a rough approximation of what I can get. Then I pick one of the negatives and go to split grade printing as the starting point.

 

[chuckroast]

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

Before the advent of Variable Contrast silver papers, you bought paper in specific "grades". Grades 0/1 were lowest contrast, grade 2 was normal ... all the way through grade 4/5/6 which were highest contrast. The paper contrast could be varied slightly with more- or less agitation and/or some variation in development chemistry, but to a large degree, the grade was the grade was the grade.

You had to calibrate your negative that would print properly with your preferred paper type and grade.

These days, this is largely irrelevant. VC papers can take on any grade between very soft and very hard. More importantly, you can vary the contrast in particular areas of the same print by changing the
ratio of hard- to soft light as you dodge and burn.

 

[GregY]

Before the advent of Variable Contrast silver papers, you bought paper in specific "grades". Grades 0/1 were lowest contrast, grade 2 was normal ... all the way through grade 4/5/6 which were highest contrast. The paper contrast could be varied slightly with more- or less agitation and/or some variation in development chemistry, but to a large degree, the grade was the grade was the grade.

You had to calibrate your negative that would print properly with your preferred paper type and grade.

These days, this is largely irrelevant. VC papers can take on any grade between very soft and very hard. More importantly, you can vary the contrast in particular areas of the same print by changing the
ratio of hard- to soft light as you dodge and burn.

You've nailed it chuck. I haven't made contact sheets in years, albeit that i shot a lot of LF. I just look at negatives for flaws, composition and general contrast. In the long run it's saved me expensive paper . Like you say, with modern VC papers and VC enlarging heads or color heads it's a lot easier than it once was. Over time, just like looking at an upside down image in a view camera, reading the negative becomes normal.

 

[chuckroast]

You've nailed it chuck. I haven't made contact sheets in years, albeit that i shot a lot of LF. I just look at negatives for flaws, composition and general contrast. In the long run it's saved me expensive paper . Like you say, with modern VC papers and VC enlarging heads or color heads it's a lot easier than it once was. Over time, just like looking at an upside down image in a view camera, reading the negative becomes normal.

I still make contact sheets just to get a sense of the composition and possible cropping options.

I do sometimes scan negatives when I am in a hurry to understand what's going on. However, this has two disadvantages. First I do not have a good film scanner, so the best I can do is lay the negative down on a flatbed and put an LED light table on top of it for scanning. This only sort of works since my office grade scanner tops out at 1200dpi and hasn't really got the dynamic range needed to scan a negative well.

Also, I do a lot of Pyro-based staining developers and I have no easy way to have the scanned image account for the stain (if someone knows how, I'd be indebted).

I've never been much a fan of RC papers, but I am going to start using exactly that for contact printing. It's far cheaper than good fiber paper and dries quickly - perfect for contacts.

P.S. The finest paper I ever used - by far - was a grade paper. Zone VI Brilliant graded fiber based paper was a joy to behold. I've never seen anything even close to it since. That paper surface and Dmax with a VC emulsion would be the best paper ever made...

 

[JerseyDoug]

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

It's pretty pointless, isn't it, to say not too dense, not too thin, not too contrasty and not too flat unless there is a common frame of reference. I don't think you can evaluate a particular negative without printing or scanning it unless you have previously looked at a lot of prints or scans and associated prints and seen what works for you.

As Fred Picker said "Try it."

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

Yes your link, Matt, goes along way to cover what I think the OP was looking for. I find it useful anyway

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

I still make contact sheets just to get a sense of the composition and possible cropping options.

I do sometimes scan negatives when I am in a hurry to understand what's going on. However, this has two disadvantages. First I do not have a good film scanner, so the best I can do is lay the negative down on a flatbed and put an LED light table on top of it for scanning. This only sort of works since my office grade scanner tops out at 1200dpi and hasn't really got the dynamic range needed to scan a negative well.

Also, I do a lot of Pyro-based staining developers and I have no easy way to have the scanned image account for the stain (if someone knows how, I'd be indebted).

I've never been much a fan of RC papers, but I am going to start using exactly that for contact printing. It's far cheaper than good fiber paper and dries quickly - perfect for contacts.

P.S. The finest paper I ever used - by far - was a grade paper. Zone VI Brilliant graded fiber based paper was a joy to behold. I've never seen anything even close to it since. That paper surface and Dmax with a VC emulsion would be the best paper ever made...

I remember that Zone VI paper, from the time when it was made by Guillemot & Boespflug in France. It was a beautiful paper....i still have some 8x10 prints made on it.
BTW Now that Arista RC 8x10" is $150/100...I'm glad i don't contact negatives. I still have some Azo & Lodima for making fine contact prints from LF negatives.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have never made either proof sheets or scans. Waste of time. After awhile actually printing, one simply gets accustomed to how a usable neg looks atop the lightbox. Then you double check it with a loupe for sharpness, potential flaws etc. But whether that particular image will make a great print or not all depends. You have to seriously attempt to print it to find out; and even then you might want to switch to a different paper after you've seen the dry result, or try a somewhat different strategy to improve things even more.

Chuck & Greg -Yep. Zone VI Brilliant Bromide Graded was a remarkable product. But today's premium VC papers are a lot easier to print on. Brilliant dumped the shadows darn hard if you didn't develop for that fact in advance. Unfortunately the VC version of Brilliant itself was pretty disappointing. It was a premature product that reminded me of the Gary Larson cartoon titled, Early Business Failures, involving a cave man with a food stand having a sign : Porcupine on a stick (roasted porcupine, quills n all).

Gosh, the sheer number of different papers I've tried, and am encountering again as I sort through both new and old prints starting to drymount again. It's that time of year - somewhat cooler but also less humid.

 

[cliveh]

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.

 

[stam6882]

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.

This is very useful, thank you.

 

[stam6882]

I make a contact sheet at grade 2 or 3, depending on the weather, when I got up and the phase of the Moon. That gives me a rough approximation of what I can get. Then I pick one of the negatives and go to split grade printing as the starting point.

This is a good start for me too. I don't have a dark room nor an enlarger now but doing contact printing should be easier to set up. The reason I am asking this is have an evaluation of the negatives with different combo of film and developer etc. before sending to my local lab for scanning.

 

[stam6882]

I would think using a light box, loupe and iPhone for quick scanning will help too.