• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Low contrast negative and high grade or the other way around ?

npl

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Messages
244
Location
France
Format
35mm
Nowadays where VC papers are the norm, we can either I) develop our black and white negative film to have a low contrast and print them using a high grade II) develop longer to have higher contrast, denser negatives and print with a low grade, or III) something in the middle.

I theory, does that produce the same print in the end ? when you develop, do you aim to get low, normal or high-contrast negatives and why ? does a print look "better" with one of the three main methods mentionned above ?

I'm planning to do some tests with my main film stock (fomapan 100 35mm) which is usually printed at grade 3 once developed in XT3-R for 8min, but I'm curious about the theory and other members workflow.
 
I aim for a normal (grade 2) range negative.....but the subject lighting/contrast always comes into play....
 
I develop for a negative that will print normal Grade 2 (although papers vairy). If a negative is for some reason prints lower contrast you can print at a higher contrast, 2 1/2 to 4/12 to compensate or try the split grade printing process.
 
If your negatives are suited to medium contrast, you have more room to adjust contrast locally in different parts of the image.
That way you can relatively easily emphasize contrast in one part, and reduce contrast in another part, without running up against the contrast limits of your materials and equipment.
And if your target is the middle, an error either way isn't as likely to be un-repairable.
 
I've been thinking about this, too. And I've come to the preliminary conclusion that my wiggle room is limited because I tend to have a wide range of scene contrasts on one roll, so I usually need to develop for a compromise. I have two hypotheses that I haven't been interested enough in to test (because I don't have the wiggle room to optimise anyway):
printing at high contrast should give more contrasty grain, as the grain itself on the negative should be of the same contrast, no matter how contrasty the negative is developed (how corase the grain gets is another matter).
Printing a contrasty negative at lower contrast should make dust less prominent.
 
Once the negative has been developed there are two main ways to handle it:
  • Tone the negatives in selenium. Sometimes this works well, but if the negative is too thing there is not enough image to work with.
  • Print in a method to bring out the contrast. Using split grade printing can help. First use the strongest magenta filter to bring out the higher contrasts by making test strips with longer and longer exposures. From those test strips pick out the best exposure, that is with the best contrast. Make a print at that exposure and then expose with test strips with the yellow filter with will bring out the contrasts of the lower contrast areas such as the sky and cloud. Pick out the best exposure. Then use those two exposures to product a print which uses the magenta and yellow filters to provide the best split grade print. Then as necessary use that as a basis to dodge and burn for each filter to product the best print.
Once the film has been developed use the above to work on getting the best print, but also evaluate the lighting situation to learn how to get better results by changing the exposure or development time.
 
I'd start in the middle. Back in graded paper days, I aimed for Grade 3, and those same negatives now print well on VC paper as well most of the time with straight light. Of course, being able to tweak the light color for the variable option is a great amenity. But at least my center point still holds true, and makes printing quite easy.

One problem starting out with too thin, or underdeveloped, of a negative, is that it makes you overtly rely on more contrast light which also accentuates any flaws on the surface of the film or on the carrier glass itself. But with experience, there are all kinds of ways to bend the rules for creative advantage. I think it's smart, however, to generally aim for a versatile neg somewhere in the middle, which allows a reasonable amount of either contrast increase of decrease via VC tweaking.

Beyond the basic question, the toning nuances of VC papers do tend to vary somewhat even within the same paper type depending on what mix of light it received under the enlarger. That's more complicated to explain. Precise final image color is quite important to me personally. Split toning is analogous. I only mention it in this context as one potential reason I sometimes break my own rules.
 
Last edited:

Dust?...... you want to process your film so it's as clean as possible...
 
I'm likely the outlier here. I aim for a rather low-contrast negative printed with 45-60 M as standard for me. The reason is that some prints made with lower-contrast filtration tend to split-tone a bit in selenium. Foma papers mostly. This must have to do with the emulsion components having different grain sizes or some other characteristic that makes them tone differently from one another.

I'm pretty good at hitting my mark most of the time, but when I don't I usually have to add more contrast, not less.

Best,

Doremus
 
I work with low contrast negatives and high contrast prints.

The low contrast grades have all sorts of bumps and flatish spots in their HD curves. The high contrast grades are much more linear.

HD curve: http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivfbwta130hd.jpg

App note on VC paper and why there are bumps at with low contrast filtration: http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotevcworkings.pdf

(You may get a security warning - I have to change the web site from htp://www.xxx to https://www.xxx)
 
Nicholas,

I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a lot of the bumps and flat spots in the VC paper curves had been straightened out with the latest generation of papers. Are there still significant irregularities in the newer papers?

FWIW, I think I've always liked the mid-tone separation better in prints made from flatter negatives with higher contrast paper/filtration.

Best,

Doremus
 
Doremus Scudder said:
I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a lot of the bumps and flat spots in the VC paper curves had been straightened out with the latest generation of papers.
Click to expand...

You are right - the curves for Ilford MG V are much better behaved. I really need to finish the testing and put the results on the web site.

Ilford fixed the grade 00 problem by the simple expedient of doing away with the old 00. The contrast range at the bottom has been squished up.

Unfortunately the V emulsion is only available in RC and I like FB & WT papers.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I'm using Multigrade Classic FB papers from Ilford. From what you say, they are not the new V emulsion, is that correct?

Best,

Doremus
 
Steve Sherman has of course been for a long time a strong advocate of low-contrast negatives and achieve the punch at the printing stage. Not to start a riot here, of course...

Btw, if I want punchy carbon prints, I need *very* punchy negatives. There's no way around it! So in the end, it's the printing process that dictates the negative. With silver gelatin and variable contrast papers, I slack off cozily and just let it all fall wherever it may land...so...liberating.
 
Well what I can tell you from 25 years teaching A-Level photography to thousands of students is that 80% of the time they are dialling in magenta filtration to increase contrast. This suggests that most films from given charts are underdeveloped.
 
cliveh said:
Well what I can tell you from 25 years teaching A-Level photography to thousands of students is that 80% of the time they are dialling in magenta filtration to increase contrast. This suggests that most films from given charts are underdeveloped.
Click to expand...

I agree with this as the lab tech with the same level of experience. But will add that there are other factors with students, also, such as exposure, developing consistancy (time, temp, agitation) and/or underestimating a scene's SBR (and/or mutliple SBRs for scenes on one roll). Keeping on top of the condition of the VC filters (Ilford) for the twenty enlargers was always a challenge (no color heads) -- I cut down the 6x6 Ilford filters to fit into the holders rather than shell out for complete sets since below the number 2s were not used very much.

That and the students' automatic love of higher contrast.
 
In my experience, young photographers tend to prefer contrast over just about everything else.
I once took a night school class on "beginners" darkroom, because I needed to get back into a darkroom after a hiatus, and it was the only class that fit into an insanely busy schedule.
The walls of the classroom outside the darkroom were covered with student prints - mostly work prints I would say.
So many of them were overly contrasty - to the detriment of the image!
FWIW, if I was teaching such a course, I would devote a higher percentage of the wall space to some higher quality prints - perhaps with accompanying printing instructions.
 
Doremus Scudder said:
Thanks for the clarification. I'm using Multigrade Classic FB papers from Ilford. From what you say, they are not the new V emulsion, is that correct?
Click to expand...

TTBOMK Ilford's V emulsion is only available on RC in glossy, pearl & satin. They refer to it as "Multigrade RC Deluxe." I think it is the "Deluxe" that does it.

The "V" designation is not used by Ilford. After using "MG IV" as an identifier I, and many others, would have thought "MG V" would be logical, but as usual marketing got involved. I'll be damned if I am going to call anything "Deluxe."
 
GregY said:
Dust?...... you want to process your film so it's as clean as possible...
Click to expand...
I want a great many things, that doesn't mean I always get them and don't have to deal with what not getting them entails... on larger prints a bit of visible dust is very hard to avoid in my setting (impermanent darkroom). And that's OK, I try to minimise it but beyond a certain point, spotting prints is easier than creating an absolutely dust-free environment.
 
Last edited:

As far as I know, Ilford Classic is the new V emulsion. Same as MGRC. Ilford warmtone both RC and FB have remained unchanged.
 
brian steinberger said:
As far as I know, Ilford Classic is the new V emulsion. Same as MGRC. Ilford warmtone both RC and FB have remained unchanged.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct - I believe the "Deluxe" improvement was actually a migration of the newer Classic FB emulsion to their RC line.
More work for you @Nicholas Lindan .
 
MattKing said:
I think you are correct - I believe the "Deluxe" improvement was actually a migration of the newer Classic FB emulsion to their RC line.
More work for you @Nicholas Lindan .
Click to expand...

The "Multigrade RC Deluxe" web page states: "The 5th generation of our MULTIGRADE, Resin Coated, variable contrast black & white photo paper." Ref.: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/multigrade-rc-deluxe-glossy-sheets

The old(er) RC paper was called "MG IV Multigrade IV RC Deluxe." So maybe if it doesn't say IV it must be a V?

The "Classic" FB web pages no such thing, and starts off with "Premium quality, fibre based, variable contrast black & white photo paper..." The page does, however, say "Uniform grade separation," which was not a feature of MGIV. Ref: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/multigrade-fb-classic-glossy-sheets-1

I would have thought something called "Classic," that I think only appears on FB paper, would have an emulsion from the old days: "Like Grandpa used to use." Oh, wait, that describes most of us...

Ilford would be the people to contact for the definitive answer.

But think what you want, believe what you will. In matters of the world this is damn close to the bottom of the priority list.
 
Last edited:

As I understand it @Nicholas Lindan , the FB paper was updated in 2013, while the RC paper update took another 8 years.
Here is the informationfrom the photomemorabilia site devoted to Ilford Multigrade, found here:
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Multigrade.html

And yes, despite the fact that Harman doesn't call the latest RC paper Multigrade RC V, they call it that on that site.
 
And for what it's worth, even though there is no "V" in the name, Harman's descriptive wording is full of reference to 5th generation - from the product information on the IlfordPhoto website:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register