Long or Short Exposure Scale - Is One "Better" than the Other?

[Vlad Soare]

Hello,

We all know that silver gelatin paper has a much shorter exposure scale than other printing processes. Therefore it needs negatives very low in contrast, much lower than other processes need.
Is this feature intentionally implemented? Are silver halide papers so contrasty for a reason? Or is it just an intrinsic property of silver halides?
Is this short exposure scale a good thing? I mean, if it were possible to create a silver halide paper with a very long exposure scale, let's call it grade #0000, which were able to match a negative developed for albumen paper, would this be a good thing? Or a bad thing? Or maybe it wouldn't matter from an image quality point of view?

Thank you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I wouldn't compare them based on 'good' or 'bad'. Making negatives is all about matching the contrast that the paper can handle, whatever that contrast might be. I just think it's great that film is so flexible, and capable, of working with all of the processes out there. That is truly a great thing.
I never assign any special 'magic' to a picture just because it was made with exotic materials. I like silver gelatin as much as I like platinum, kallitypes, salt prints, etc. To me they are all just ways of getting the picture to show, and it is the underlying picture that's important, in my opinion. And quality wise I can't possibly say that silver gelatin have qualities that are in any way worse than any of the others. In the final prints, the contrast from black to white can be just as appealing as a platinum print, sometimes even more so, if done right.

So for me it's impossible to say that it's better or worse to develop negatives a certain way. I hope that makes sense.

- Thomas

 

[Vlad Soare]

I agree, and when I said good or bad I didn't mean it literally. At least not from an artistic point of view.

What I'm trying to understand is whether there is any technical advantage in having a contrasty paper that requires thin negatives, instead of having a long exposure scale paper that requires contrasty negatives.
I'm trying to understand why photographic papers have standardized to such a high contrast level. Is it an intrinsic property of silver halides, just a side effect that people had no choice but to learn to live with? Or is there any actual technical advantage in making them so contrasty?

I'm not discussing the look of silver halide paper as opposed to the look of albumen/platinum/whatever. Supposing you could get the same look both in grade #3 and in grade #0000, which one would you choose, and why? Would there be any technical advantage in making a low contrast negative suitable for #3 paper rather than a high contrast negative suited to #0000 paper?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Got nothing to add, I'm afraid.

 

[Jim Noel]

Papers like you describe are sadly a thing of the past. Silver chloride contact papers had very long scales and were able to reproduce all the information contained in negatives which had received total development. Lodima is a modern contact printing paper but I don't believe it is fully capable of the extreme scale of which you speak.

If you are really interested in this you need to learn to make salted paper prints which have a very long scale and is not difficult to learn.

 

[ic-racer]

Hello,

We all know that silver gelatin paper has a much shorter exposure scale than other printing processes. Therefore it needs negatives very low in contrast, much lower than other processes need.
Is this feature intentionally implemented? Are silver halide papers so contrasty for a reason? Or is it just an intrinsic property of silver halides?
Is this short exposure scale a good thing? I mean, if it were possible to create a silver halide paper with a very long exposure scale, let's call it grade #0000, which were able to match a negative developed for albumen paper, would this be a good thing? Or a bad thing? Or maybe it wouldn't matter from an image quality point of view?

Thank you.

Historically, films had been processed to higher gammas. In the 1950s to 1960s it seems that the lower film gammas (and subsequent higher paper contrast) became more popular. My take on it is that with the hand-held cameras, the lower (0.8 to 0.6) gamma of the negatives gave more resolution and less grain when enlarged.

Maybe PE has some insight here?

 

[Vlad Soare]

Ooooh, I see. I forgot about small formats and enlargements.
I was thinking about large formats and contact printing, and didn't realize that it was in fact the enlargement capability that made silver halide papers so popular. Indeed, I can see why thin negatives and contrasty papers are advantageous for small format photographers who enlarge a lot.
It makes sense now. Thank you.

 

[Allen Friday]

Several years ago there was a discussion here on APUG about the exposure scale of silver enlarging paper, AZO and POP paper.

BTZS tests were run and the exposure scales for the papers came out as follows:

Kodak Polymax Fine Art at softest setting on my enlarger: 1.81
AZO grade 2: 1.63
Centennial POP: 2.0

Much of my work is in platinum. I try to produce negatives to match paper with an exposure scale of 1.8.

Silver enlarging papers can be printed to an exposure scale that is in line with or exceeds some of the historical processes. Also, with platinum at least, by using the highest contrast mixture of developer, one can do a short scale print around 1.1, which is close to a grade two silver print. I proof my negatives for platinum printing on silver enlarging paper at the lowest contrast setting on my enlarger.

So, one can produce prints with a long exposure scale using VC enlarging paper. But, they do look different. To my eye, the midtones on the enlarging paper are not as rich. YMMV.

To the question of "why?", I think is has more to do with the inherent characteristics of the emulsions rather than aesthetic choices of artists. My reading of the history of photography is that the development and adoption of new processes has more to do with practical, commercial concerns. The daguerreotype was clearly superior to the calotype when one looked only at the resulting image. But it did not prevail as the dominant photographic means because it was not reproducible. The albumen print did not survive because it was contact print only and required UV light. Contact papers gave way to enlarging papers for obvious reasons. Film has been pretty much replaced by digital for magazines, newspapers, commercial work et al, because...let's not get into that.

I think there is tremendous freedom working today because an artist can choose the process that matches their vision, instead of being confined to a certain process. It wasn't too terribly long ago that people though if it wasn't a cold toned silver print, it wasn't a photograph, let alone art.