Loss of continuity of tone

[polyglot]

Marco: actually I'm using a B&W head (LPL 7700) with Ilford MGIV 3x3" filter sheets stuck in above the condensor. It's what's provided in a club darkroom but I'm thinking about buying my own soon - there's a C 7700 (colour head, otherwise similar) listed locally for less than the lens in it is worth so I might grab that and give it a go too.

WolfTales: I thought low contrast filters were more yellow, thereby blocking out more blue light and thereby holding back exposure of the higher-contrast layer of the paper. Conversely, high contrast filters are magenta to block out the green light and reduce exposure of the low-contrast layer. I believe you can get approximately the same effect as #5 by using a blue filter and a #00 or similar by using a green filter. As I understand it (tell me if I'm wrong) the total density of each filter is adjusted so that with a reduction in exposure of one layer there will be an increase in exposure of the other layer and the midtones will remain at about the same density for a given exposure.

as such... if I'm doing a split-grade print, surely it doesn't matter that I use the two most extreme grades? The point is to manually expose the two layers separately is it not? If the low-contrast layer blocks up with an exposure that would give me highlight detail, then getting a perfect print will require either a yet-lower contrast layer, or some masking or dodging.

One more thing: there is plenty of shadow detail in the negs. They're quite thick. Contrasty with very dense highlights and no blocked/transparent shadows... it's just in the printing where I'm losing detail.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

polyglot, I've done some thinking.

While your choice of film stays the same, the camera and the lens is different, and possibly the metering.

The MF kit you have might have different contrast characteristics than your 35mm setup. Since the film and the paper and the chemistry is constant for you, you probably will want to look at the part of your process that changed.

Since you say you get excellent results with 35mm Pan-F+, there is no reason 120 Pan-F+ should give you equally good results, if all other things were equal.

I am assuming that you used fresh Pan-F+ in both cases, processed the film in a similar manner in the same chemistry, and that you printed with the same paper, process, and chemistry in your comparison.

How to get around that problem is a different story. But it makes sense to address the things in your process that actually did change before you start changing chemistry and paper, which would probably make it even more confusing.

 

[WolfTales]

A filter is just a filter ie... it just blocks light.

Aye - the paper has two layers of silver, each with a filter on top - to make it more sensitive to a particular color. So yes the summation of this subtractive process is what is confusing.

Try it to find out. Make a few test prints throughout the contrast ranges to see what the effect is on the multigrader paper. So you can try making a good test print at 00, then one at 0, then one at 1, one at 2, one at 3, one at 4, and one a 5. Take notes on each setting so you can replicate it later.

Before each test print, make a good test strip so you know what exposure will give you black blacks and white whites for those test prints.

Then let them dry and inspect them and see where good details are showing up in what contrast setting, make a note of how that's affecting your tonal compression regarding that pesky contrasy negative . This will give you an idea of how the multigrade paper is reacting to different contrast settings with the contrasts in the negative. Then you can deduce how the light is flowing from the lamp, gets blocked by the area in the negative, gets blocked by the filter, and then gets burned into the paper with the proper time. And then you can think of places to burn or dodge more or less with more time or less time. And then you can think of places to develop more or less with more time in the chemicals or less time in the chemicals. Rate which test print is most pleasing to you and then try to figure out why.

I usually just pick a contrast level I can sort of work with, and then fine tune additional contrast adjustments by adding more or less chemical developement and more or less selenium toning. It'll also give you an idea if split contrast printing is needed.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

For your prints to look similar tonality wise, you need to make quite sure your 35 and MF systems are bang on exposure wise. You need to be talking apples to apples here. If your 35mm negs and prints are okay, and the 120 ones are not, then that tells me the same film is not being exposed and developed the same between systems. Have you made sure your 35mm camera meter and shutter matches what you do with MF and vice versa? If not then the negs WILL be different if you develop them the way you do normally.

As for the printing, it sounds like you MF system is overexpsoing the negs slightly and building more contrast (something is easily done with Pan-f) You may need to back off on your development as a result to get your print grades in the same range as what you get with 35mm.

That said, the split grade approach should save these negs and make them printable, but I am not convinced that split grade printing always needs Grade 00. Often times I split grade print using G1.5 or G2 and then punch in the blacks with G5. If you use 00, often times the prints can still look muddy in the highlights. YMMV vary of course, but you need to resolve the camera differences first to get negs of the same density.

 

[Anon Ymous]

...That said, the split grade approach should save these negs and make them printable, but I am not convinced that split grade printing always needs Grade 00. Often times I split grade print using G1.5 or G2 and then punch in the blacks with G5. If you use 00, often times the prints can still look muddy in the highlights. YMMV vary of course, but you need to resolve the camera differences first to get negs of the same density.

I don't have that much experience, but I do think that grade 00 is an overkill. I have done some limited tests with the same negative (the annoying kind with too much contrast) and I have to say that G1 or higher might be a good idea in some cases. Using 00 or 0 might add too much gray, making the print too flat.

 

[WolfTales]

Using 00 or 0 might add too much gray, making the print too flat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in theory one should still be able to obtain black blacks and white whites with 00 or 0. This is dependant more on finding the proper length of exposure time on paper when you bring it to full development.

Only the tonal range should expand or contracts, ie the amount of greys available.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in theory one should still be able to obtain black blacks and white whites with 00 or 0. This is dependant more on finding the proper length of exposure time on paper when you bring it to full development.

Only the tonal range should expand or contracts, ie the amount of greys available.

In theory, yes. Practically, and assuming that you're talking about split grade printing, Getting the highlight ok with a #00 filter might lead to flat prints. That's why I agreed with Andrew that a #1 filter might be better.

OTOh, if you're not talking about split grade, #00 or 0 will probably give you good blacks or good whites with a normal negative, but not both!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's off topic, but usually a flat looking print, when split grade printing, is a results of not using the high contrast filter correctly or enough.

In pictures with sky in them, for instance, try burning it in with a high contrast filter after you burn it in with the low contrast filter. It makes a world of difference.

Back to the problem at hand, though - to the OP: Check the variables (camera, lens, meter) and leave the constants alone for now. Otherwise you're likely to be addressing symptoms rather than the problem.

 

[WolfTales]

Practically, and assuming that you're talking about split grade printing, Getting the highlight ok with a #00 filter

I disagree. Practically speaking, on a difficult negative, I've found I really didn't know where anything really was, which is why I suggested test printing the entire scale and notating it for sure.

It may be that there are items on the negative that already have enough contrast that don't need any additional filtering whatsoever, so you need to print it flat.

And it may live side by side with an item that does indeed need additional contrast so you need to print up.

Living side by side with an item that has too much contrast and you want to print down.

One doesn't know for sure unless test prints are made throughout the scale.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It's off topic, but usually a flat looking print, when split grade printing, is a results of not using the high contrast filter correctly or enough.

Nah, it's not really off topic. I think I'd rephrase your words and say that the ratio between soft/hard is crucial, not exactly hard filtration by itself. Sometimes, I get flat prints because I use too much soft filtration (long time), trying to get the highlights nice. If anything, I'd suggest being conservative when picking the time for soft filtration.

In pictures with sky in them, for instance, try burning it in with a high contrast filter after you burn it in with the low contrast filter. It makes a world of difference.

That seems to be my observation as well! Sometimes I burn by sliding a card, effectively simulating a graduated filter, using hard filtration.

Back to the problem at hand, though - to the OP: Check the variables (camera, lens, meter) and leave the constants alone for now. Otherwise you're likely to be addressing symptoms rather than the problem.

Agreed!

 

[nworth]

Pan F+ is a rather high contrast film with a fairly sharp toe. Combine that with a high contrast subject and you are in difficulty. Add Rodinal, and you are in trouble. Much of what has been said above is useful, but you have a situation here that makes all the minor problems show up badly. The first step would probably be to use some Zone system techniques to be sure the exposure and development are right on. Small errors in these high contrast situations make a big difference. At least bracket a lot, probably in half stop or less increments. I might try a more gentle developer, although Rodinal may not really be that bad. I think D-23 might be nice here. Something that gives a bit of a toe curve may help. As you have found out, printing can be tricky. Different papers will handle this subject differently, so try a few. The extreme grades of either VC or graded paper are generally pretty ugly. They are there to rescue bad exposures and to give some sort of image, but they don't usually give a really good looking picture. That's where Zone techniques come in. If you can get a negative that will print on something between grades 1-1/2 and 3-1/2, you can generally make a good print.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

I'm not trying to teach Grandma to suck eggs here....While this is all important and relevant information, we must put this all aside for a moment and get back on topic.... Until the differences of how each camera system handles exposures with similar subjects and brightness ranges is known with the same film, printing is the least of the worries at this point. The problem is getting negs that look the same, and have a similar density. After that, printing 'should' be a whole lot easier regardless of whether split grade or regular printing methods are used.

Again, no one has confirmed that the cameras are even close in their exposure capabilities. My guess is they are not.

 

[WolfTales]

I'm not trying to teach Grandma to suck eggs here....While this is all important and relevant information, we must put this all aside for a moment and get back on topic.... Until the differences of how each camera system handles exposures with similar subjects and brightness ranges is known with the same film, printing is the least of the worries at this point.

Sorry - printing is what this topic is about. At this point the OP already has a negative he needs to work with so that he can prepare it for a competition in 2 weeks.

Let's stay on topic here peoples!!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I also noticed in a previous post that OP has changed paper from old MGIV RC to new MGIV RC. If there is a lot of age difference between the two, this is also a variable and not a constant.

Go back and print a 35mm neg with similar contrast range and see if you're still happy with your 35mm negatives. As papers age they change.

 

[wogster]

For your prints to look similar tonality wise, you need to make quite sure your 35 and MF systems are bang on exposure wise. You need to be talking apples to apples here. If your 35mm negs and prints are okay, and the 120 ones are not, then that tells me the same film is not being exposed and developed the same between systems. Have you made sure your 35mm camera meter and shutter matches what you do with MF and vice versa? If not then the negs WILL be different if you develop them the way you do normally.

As for the printing, it sounds like you MF system is overexpsoing the negs slightly and building more contrast (something is easily done with Pan-f) You may need to back off on your development as a result to get your print grades in the same range as what you get with 35mm.

That said, the split grade approach should save these negs and make them printable, but I am not convinced that split grade printing always needs Grade 00. Often times I split grade print using G1.5 or G2 and then punch in the blacks with G5. If you use 00, often times the prints can still look muddy in the highlights. YMMV vary of course, but you need to resolve the camera differences first to get negs of the same density.

As easy test for this, is to set the two cameras side by side, check the meters, for the same film of the same scene they should read identical, if they don't then one or both meters need to be calibrated. Get a hold of a white board, put it in your scene and focus on it, so that you will be able to read the numbers on the board. You want a scene of lots of medium tones, a complex or busy scene can be hard to evaluate.

Pick one of them, doesn't really matter which, set the exposure, now go 2 stops under, write on your card AP -2 and take an exposure. Then increase by 1 stop (change your white board to AP -1 do this for all exposures) and take another, keep doing this until you get 2 stops over, using only the aperture adjustment. Go back to 2 stops under and repeat changing only the shutter speed dial (on your white board use SS -2 etc)

Develop both rolls of film the same way, select either AP 0 or SS 0 and determine an enlarger setting, print all of them at this same setting on grade 2 paper or with grade 2 filters. You do this for each negative size separately.

You now have 4 sets of prints that should be identical, They should go from 2 stops underexposed to 2 stops over exposed. If the steps are not even, then you have a camera problem. A draggy aperture or a sticky shutter being most common. The camera, if it's older may need a CLA, done by a shop that knows that make/model of camera well. If the shutter is in the lens, you can try a different lens, to see if that helps.

Now about those meters, make sure if you send one for servicing that they calibrate the meter as well. After you get it back, pick a scene where you can get varying light, either a studio or outdoors on a day with changing conditions. Adjust the ASA dial of the meter that was not calibrated, so that they read the same, keep checking as the light changes, if the difference remains the same, that's good, you now know that by offsetting the meter, you can compensate for the difference.

 

[polyglot]

Hi guys,

thanks for all the responses. The camera's shutter speed and aperture are fine as I have plenty of good (exposure and tonal range exactly as expected) results from both HP5 and TMY2. I'm using my DSLR as a spotmeter and I've checked it against my 35mm SLR's meter (they're the same brand, use the same matrix/spot meter hardware and they agree). Likewise the new paper is fine as long as it's used within the normal range of grades - I've got good prints from it from both 35mm and 6x7, just not on Pan-F.

The problem is just that the scene has loads and loads of dynamic range and I probably shouldn't have used Pan-F for it is all... I was assuming that if there was information in the negative that I could print it just by lowering the grade, I just had no idea there were flatspots in the paper's response at low grades. I used Pan-F instead of HP5 because I want to print quite large and picked the film before I left the house, not anticipating the dynamic range. The local stores only have MGIV papers (and very few of those at that!) so trying some Kentmere or something isn't really an option.

Reshooting is certainly an option in this case (waterfall is 30 minutes away) and I'll be taking TMY2, HP5 and Pan-F there again this weekend to see if I can do any better. While I should be able to get a better neg by reshooting in better light and probably developing less if the contrast is similar, I still want to make the high-contrast negs work via split-grade printing because there will no doubt come a time when I can't reshoot. The darkroom I use is shared and 20km away, so it will be a few days before I can post results - probably early next week.

 

[polyglot]

Reshot one roll on PanF on the weekend (clouds came in and it wasn't worth using the other rolls), developed 11:00 in D-76 1+3 and it came out a lot better - still plenty of contrast in the shadows but a lot less density in the flowing water. Printing session tomorrow night to see how it goes.

 

[polyglot]

Printed three of the new negs last night and they're beautiful - came out right at #2 to #2.5. Spent so much time on that that I didn't get around to the split-grade printing, but pulling the development to avoid low grades definitely solved the problem.

 

[Marco B]

Normally, you would "push" the film instead of pull to avoid the low grades. But I understand what you mean, you attempted to print a negative on a low grade that simply wasn't suitable for printing on that grade, without significant burning or dodging. Curbing contrast with more dilution and / or shorter development times, does help as you experienced. Just make sure of having plenty of exposure.

Good to hear you got some nice prints now.

 

[polyglot]

Marco: I pulled it because the contrast was too high with normal development, hence the attempt (with the first set of negs) to use low grades... which didn't really work for me.

 

[Marco B]

Eh, sorry, I see I was writing nonsense! Push to avoid low grades during printing is of course nonsense, you were right it needs to be a pull...