Just like DST

[Mats_A]

I should know this. But every year when we change to Daylight Saving Time I have a similar problem: will the evening be longer or shorter? And every year I have to wait and see.

If I have an overexposed negative, should I print with a harder or softer paper/filter?
My confused brain manage to come up with reasons for both. Yesterday I struggled 2 hours with one neg. The test strips were Ok. Just a little more. Then the shadows went dark. Softer filter. Timing went off. New test. Full scale test. UGH! Muddy and ugly. Going up, going down.
This can be a very frustrating art when you SEE the picture you want to make but your stupid hands and brain won't let you.

Any way. Question was: Overexposed neg, do I print hard or soft? What is the rule of thumb on this?

r

Mats

 

[MattKing]

Overexposure might result in the information in the negative being crowded into the shoulder of the curve, which would result in low contrast.

But really, the contrast issue is mostly independent of exposure.

If the light in the scene was contrasty, and/or the negative was overdeveloped, you should use a lower contrast printing filter. If the light in the scene was low in contrast, and/or the negative was underdeveloped, you should use a higher contrast printing filter.

You may find that overexposure makes it necessary to print the highlights at a different contrast than the shadows and mid-tones.

 

[ic-racer]

What MattKing said, plus if your definition of 'overexposure' just means that usually you expose with the low values on the toe, and now they are pushed up so everything is on the strainght portion (yet not on the shoulder) they you will need a slightly lower contrast paper (because you are no longer getting that little bit of toe compression of values).

If, as MattKing pointed out, you are way, way overexposed, you likely will need to place the negative in the trash. Once you are over the shoulder the negative is ruined just as if you had under-exposed it. You can try to save it with hight contrast printing (just like trying to save an under-exposed negative with hight contrast printing).

 

[Mats_A]

I assume I have an overexposure on three negs on this roll. This because I did a contact print that put fb+fog at black. This leaves these three negs much lighter than the rest. I tried to print one of them and had problem getting it the way I want to. I am way to critical about my own printing and will always find flaws where a normal (non B&W shooter) would find none. I am always looking to make a WOW picture.

MattKing: Your Ansel quote in your sig is spot one. It is like juggling. And I only know how to do it with one ball at a time.

r

Mats

 

[Wade D]

If the 3 negs are lighter than the rest then they are under exposed. If there is any detail in the negs then a very short exposure under the enlarger is indicated to keep the paper from going totally black.

 

[Rick A]

Mats -- There are a few ways to deal with the underexposed negs. Start by stopping the lens way down to avoid overexposing the paper, adding a neutral density filter will help, I switch to graded paper and use a vc filter as a nd filter to pull up a decent photo. Try preflashing or postflashing the paper to lay down a little base fog, just to the point of almost being visable.
As with anything, experiment and take notes, and add that to your bag of tricks. The alternative is to give up and toss the negs (not an alternative), but the challenge is too great to do that. Cut some 8x10 paper down to 4x5 and experiment, its really cheap that way, when you get it figured out, move back up to whatever size you want.

cheers

 

[Mats_A]

If the 3 negs are lighter than the rest then they are under exposed. If there is any detail in the negs then a very short exposure under the enlarger is indicated to keep the paper from going totally black.

It's not the negs that are lighter it's the contact prints. Hence I think they are overexposed..... or...?

r

Mats

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Yes, if the contacts are lighter then the negs are overexposed.

 

[Q.G.]

It's not the negs that are lighter it's the contact prints. Hence I think they are overexposed..... or...?

... or the contact prints of these three are underexposed.

 

[Wade D]

It's not the negs that are lighter it's the contact prints. Hence I think they are overexposed..... or...?

r

Mats

Sorry. I misread your previous post. You are correct. More exposure will be needed to print through the denser neg.