Low contrast Negs

I think David Miller is a little too fast on the close thread button. I posted a question which did refer to dark scans, but the root issue was thin/low contrast negs when compared to older negatives (pre-digital), which I think is a fair analog question. I will also rephrase the question to be an analog one completely (I should also add that I will be printing these w/ enlarger at a later time).

Anyway, here goes again...

Hello All,
Getting back into film / developing after a 10 year hiatus ). I am having trouble with what I think are low contrast negatives, though they appear thin as well. FYI... I am shooting TriX @ 400 iso, developing in Kodak D-76 1:1 for 9min 45sec @20C, 10 sec stop, 3 min Kodafix. For developing, agitate 3 inversions, wait 30 sec, agitate inversions, then 3 inversions every minute thereafter. Developer is packaged Kodak D-76, distilled water, boiled, cooled to 120F, mixed, placed in air-tight 1L bottle.

Problem is I get dark final images that have low contrast when printed. I happen to have some older negatives that print very well and when I compare the old/new negs side by side I see the older negs have more contrast and have a deeper tonal range. By the way, the older negs were printed via analog methods with great success, so I believe these are my "reference" with regard to negative quality.

I am trying to figure out the logical progression of how to adjust my developing to improve tone depth and contrast of the negative. I thought about the following options, but would like the opinion of those much smarter than I.

1) Develop in stock D-76 @ 6m45s 20C - shorter time, higher concentration
2) Increase development time of 1:1 D-76
3) Switch developer
4) Increase exposure (however I get same results over 2 cameras)

I could try all of these but I was wondering if there is a preferred work flow.

Someone mentioned that it could be a developer / temp issue. I develop at 68 degrees as recorded by a digital thermometer.. the tank is in a 68 degree bath. Time may be +/- 10 seconds. The chemistry is new stock... maybe 2 weeks old, I mix 1L at a time and then dilute just before develop.



Your help would be quite appreciated.

Thanks,
Jim

Sounds like an issue that is best tackled via methodical zone system or BTZS logic.

But, my quick answer would be, increase exposure. Why not see what that does for you and then methodically move further down the chain and start considering processing changes.

Why not bracket your next exposures and see where that leads you.

I too am doing some B&W developing after several years of purely digital, and just by chance I developed my first 120 Tri-X yesterday. Despite being very outdated stock, I thought it was OK apart from a base fog level higher than I like and expect for FP4, say.

Assuming that your temperatures really are correct, (I'd check against an analog mercury or spirit thermometer if possible) my suggestion for starters would be to take a series of easily repeatable shots at different ISOs from 400 through 200 down to 100 - on the same film, keeping good notes on the way. Getting exposures away from the shadow area will tend to raise contrast as well as lessening the dust problems when scanning.

I'm sure I've heard somewhere that meters are now calibrated towards slide film where over-exposure isn't welcome - could this be a factor?

M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

Thanks Keith,
I could do that... but I guess I was wondering if I was missing something first... along the lines of... "D-76 1-1 has a tendency to produce lower contrast results compared to stock solutions" or something along those lines.

My logic of having the exposure farther down on the list is that I am assuming that the exposure is correct (2 cameras same results), and slides come out well when exposed at stated iso. So, I felt I needed to attack the development question first. Do not want to compensate exposure for a flaw elsewhere, and all that )

Will do your suggestion on roll in the camera now, will give me additional info.

The BTZS that you refer to, I see there is a BTZS web site, is that what you are referring to?

Thank you,
Jim

Malcolm Stewart said:

Despite being very outdated stock, I thought it was OK apart from a base fog level higher than I like and expect for FP4, say.

Assuming that your temperatures really are correct, (I'd check against an analog mercury or spirit thermometer if possible) my suggestion for starters would be to take a series of easily repeatable shots at different ISOs from 400 through 200 down to 100 - on the same film, keeping good notes on the way. Getting exposures away from the shadow area will tend to raise contrast as well as lessening the dust problems when scanning.

I'm sure I've heard somewhere that meters are now calibrated towards slide film where over-exposure isn't welcome - could this be a factor?

M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

Click to expand...

Hi Milton,
Thanks for the reply. I think you and Keith are both saying to work with the exposure first... as opposed to my logic of exposure last. I will certainly take the comments to heart.

I am also intrigued by the comment of the base fog layer... the Tri-X does seem "foggier" than the Ilford film that I tried, but I did not notice much difference in the final results. Possibly the exposure issue does not let me notice this yet.

As for the meter, I am shooting w/ a Leica M6TTL and an M7... not sure how these meters are calibrated.

Best Regards,
Jim

Bear in mind that TX has changed at least once in the last ten years, so you may have adjust exposure and development time since you last used it.

Look at your shadow detail on the negatives. If you're not getting enough, then it's underexposure. Once you've sorted that out, then adjust development time to produce the contrast range you want with the printing method you use.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Bear in mind that TX has changed at least once in the last ten years, so you may have adjust exposure and development time since you last used it.

Look at your shadow detail on the negatives. If you're not getting enough, then it's underexposure. Once you've sorted that out, then adjust development time to produce the contrast range you want with the printing method you use.

Click to expand...

Thanks... Exposure it is. Will work in this order:
1) Adjust iso that gives me the shadow detail.
2) Adjust development time for contrast range.
3) Will stick w/ TX & D-76 (1:1) to dial in what I like & not react to more variables
Then later:
4) Explore other developers & film to look at other combos - for fun.

Thanks to all that replied.


Thanks to all that have replied.

You might give HC-110 a try. Negs developed in it tend to be a little snappier than the softer D-76.

Fred

Fred Aspen said:

You might give HC-110 a try. Negs developed in it tend to be a little snappier than the softer D-76.

Fred

Click to expand...

Thanks Fred.

Yes, play first with exposure to get the neg density that you need. N.b. I'd be inclined to re-examine your metering practices even before considering rating below box speed. There are only a few films I use for which rating low is really vitally necessary in my opinion (notably delta 3200, xp2 and other c41 films). Just meditate on how your metering affects the maximum density areas in your negative. If your negs are all turning out too thin then I'd first ask, where are you placing your highlights in terms of your metered range?

After first establishing a good base density in your highlights, then if you need to change the contrast index of the neg you can start playing with development. But for normal silver prints, I doubt you'll need to make any development adjustments with most of the films. I mean, I do fp4+ rated @125 dev in ID-11 1+1, totally by the book, and silver print with no issues at all, no contrast adjustment needed. And I couldn't be happier.

I should hasten to add that I very rarely use the tri-Xes, so maybe there are rating/dev issues with those that I don't see with the Ilfords.

BTZS is a methodical way to control contrast index for specific kinds of output, especially alt printing techniques. For silver you can skate clear of BTZS and do very well IMHO.

keithwms said:

Yes, play first with exposure to get the neg density that you need. N.b. I'd be inclined to re-examine your metering practices even before considering rating below box speed. There are only a few films I use for which rating low is really vitally necessary in my opinion (notably delta 3200, xp2 and other c41 films). Just meditate on how your metering affects the maximum density areas in your negative. If your negs are all turning out too thin then I'd first ask, where are you placing your highlights in terms of your metered range?

Click to expand...

How to attack this one. Maybe I am being way too simplistic in my metering. I typically frame, focus, set exposure, fire. The Leica uses a center white dot on the shutter to set it's exposure (you probably know this). If there is strong highlights / shadows I will check these regions separately, and then make a judgment as to what I am exposing for. I should also say that the "thin" negs are also there w/o these highlight / shadow levels... say overcast days. I would expect flatter negs on overcast days, but not as flat / thin as I am getting.

Am I missing something here?

Let me suggest doing a sunny 16 test: find a subject with a good brightness range, full-on sunlight, rate at box speed, shutter speed 1/ISO and f/16. Verify that your meter sees middle grey as ~1/ISO at f/16. Then you can bracket by changing the shutter speed plus minus 1 stop. Hopefully your scene will have a lot of range in it, from whites to blacks. If you can set up a scene with say 7-8 stops of range, then you can expose for middle grey and see what that brings. If you want to be all academic about it, you could sketch your scene and spot meter and indicate in your sketch where all the zones are. Then you'll know what your metering issue is, if there is one.

Sometimes people (especially if their background is slide film or digital) are excessively worried about blowing highlights. So then they habitually meter to protect the highlights. I am not saying that this is what you are doing, I am just saying that sometimes this way of thinking is the culprit. If you are too shy with your highlights, then the whole neg will come out thin.

I am a simpleton, with neg film I aim for middle grey or maybe a tad toward the shadows (that is my fudge factor), and let other things fall where they please. With modern films this is not such a bad approach. I do use a different approach for slide though, in that case I concern myself with protecting highlights.

Many thanks Keith, I will certainly give that a try. Coming from digital, I may well have picked up the habit of protecting the highlights from shooting digital / slide film. When I shot film it was lots of Ektachrome & Kodachrome later in life, with miles of Tri-X / Plus-X as a younger person who could not afford color (early 70's).

I also have a hand-held meter that I will throw in my bag and check some scenes a bit more in detail prior to shooting. Compare to camera & end result.

Yeah, I'm on the party line here. I'd nail the exposure on-camera for sure and see where that leads. I use TMX-120 and dev in HC110 Dil B and the negs come out very well. Good contrast range. 'Course, I tend to lower my exposure setting by a stop or so 'cause I like the mood. Not all the time but I would guess I decrease exposure about 60% of the time which also provides for better contrast (more seperation in lower zones hence expose for the shadows . . .)

Bit puzzled by this comment, I don't / can't close threads!

jlpape said:

I think David Miller is a little too fast on the close thread button. I posted a question which did refer to dark scans, but the root issue was thin/low contrast negs when compared to older negatives (pre-digital), which I think is a fair analog question. I will also rephrase the question to be an analog one completely (I should also add that I will be printing these w/ enlarger at a later time).

Anyway, here goes again...

Hello All,
Getting back into film / developing after a 10 year hiatus ). I am having trouble with what I think are low contrast negatives, though they appear thin as well. FYI... I am shooting TriX @ 400 iso, developing in Kodak D-76 1:1 for 9min 45sec @20C, 10 sec stop, 3 min Kodafix. For developing, agitate 3 inversions, wait 30 sec, agitate inversions, then 3 inversions every minute thereafter. Developer is packaged Kodak D-76, distilled water, boiled, cooled to 120F, mixed, placed in air-tight 1L bottle.

Problem is I get dark final images that have low contrast when printed. I happen to have some older negatives that print very well and when I compare the old/new negs side by side I see the older negs have more contrast and have a deeper tonal range. By the way, the older negs were printed via analog methods with great success, so I believe these are my "reference" with regard to negative quality.

I am trying to figure out the logical progression of how to adjust my developing to improve tone depth and contrast of the negative. I thought about the following options, but would like the opinion of those much smarter than I.

1) Develop in stock D-76 @ 6m45s 20C - shorter time, higher concentration
2) Increase development time of 1:1 D-76
3) Switch developer
4) Increase exposure (however I get same results over 2 cameras)

I could try all of these but I was wondering if there is a preferred work flow.

Someone mentioned that it could be a developer / temp issue. I develop at 68 degrees as recorded by a digital thermometer.. the tank is in a 68 degree bath. Time may be +/- 10 seconds. The chemistry is new stock... maybe 2 weeks old, I mix 1L at a time and then dilute just before develop.



Your help would be quite appreciated.

Thanks,
Jim

Click to expand...

Just a thought, but what does the film edge look like? Can you clearly see the manufacturers mark on the film edge? If you can't, it means that your developer is either a) bad, or b) exhausted. However, since you're just mixed up the dev, it should be fine. My guess would be either a bad meter, or just plain underexposure. As mentioned above, be methodical - start with shadow detail, and once that's satisfactory, work on the dev time. But make sure you minimize the variables - same camera, same meter, same everything. If you start changing the variables, you'll never figure out what's going on. But I think you understand this.

Dave Miller said:

Bit puzzled by this comment, I don't / can't close threads!

Click to expand...

Apologies to you Dave... guess yours was the last comment in the thread prior to close... must have misread. Change "David Miller" to "whoever closed this thread"

KenM said:

Just a thought, but what does the film edge look like? Can you clearly see the manufacturers mark on the film edge? If you can't, it means that your developer is either a) bad, or b) exhausted. However, since you're just mixed up the dev, it should be fine. My guess would be either a bad meter, or just plain underexposure. As mentioned above, be methodical - start with shadow detail, and once that's satisfactory, work on the dev time. But make sure you minimize the variables - same camera, same meter, same everything. If you start changing the variables, you'll never figure out what's going on. But I think you understand this.

Click to expand...

Film edge looks good, not sure how dense the letters are, but easily read.

Thanks for your advice, Ken. This kind of info is what I was after, without it I would probably have gone down the wrong path. Would have started first on development time, and exposure last. I had it backwards.

Not having read all the posts so far, but knowing how to get you where you need to be, here's the solution.

1)Shoot a roll of film using your in camera metering system, (and remembering that on a sunny day, the film speed of the film used as your shutter speed shot at f16 is the norm...i.e. Tri-X would be 1/500th @ f16 exposure), and bracket, starting with dead on exposure, then opening up (overexposing) 1/2 then 1 stop and finally 1 1/2 stops. Do the same on closing down, i/e/ under exposing. You should have 7 exposures at this point. shoot a scene that has a wide range of tones, but be sure you have highlight areas and shadows you can judge...not just a coffee cup on a table in the distance. Since you have a lot of film left, take several scenes using this exposure bracketing, in the same order, and keep track of what you do.
2)develop the roll of Tri-X in D-76 or Xtol @ the stock, undiluted strength for 8 minutes (not only my own time...actually I use 8.5 minutes..., but also from the Massive development chart http://digitaltruth.com/devchart.html)
3)during your agitation, don't go too softly. While overdevelopment increases density, agitation controls contrast (either one also controls the other to some extent, BUT primarily, overdevelopment controls density, and primarily agitation controls contrast). Also, to alleviate any chance of drag from sprocket holes, I occasionally roll the tank back and forth for the 5 sec. of agitation you should use each 30 sec. (after the initial full 30 sec. at the beginning of course). So basically I do the inversion about 3 or 4 times, then roll a couple of times, and repeat for the full development time. Stop and fix as usual.
4)Dry, then cut in strips. (the best would be 7 frames per strip but that will run off the 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, and you really won't need the 7th frame since it will be 1 1/2 stops under exposed, so 6 frames is fine...throw away the 7th).
5)make a contact sheet of the dried film on a #2 filter (depending on your agitation, it should be a #2, but could go 1/2 grade either way, but shouldn't go to a #3). Do a test strip and use the time where the frame numbers first go white. Proceed to make a great proof sheet.
6)compare each scene and exposure with the others. This will give you a good idea of exposures under different conditions, and will allow you to make adjustments on the fly.

You are all done.

jfish said:

3)during your agitation, don't go too softly. While overdevelopment increases density, agitation controls contrast (either one also controls the other to some extent, BUT primarily, overdevelopment controls density, and primarily agitation controls contrast). Also, to alleviate any chance of drag from sprocket holes, I occasionally roll the tank back and forth for the 5 sec. of agitation you should use each 30 sec. (after the initial full 30 sec. at the beginning of course). So basically I do the inversion about 3 or 4 times, then roll a couple of times, and repeat for the full development time. Stop and fix as usual.

Click to expand...

Thank you... Parts 1 and 2 are right in line with advice from others... Part 3) about agitation controlling contrast is very interesting. I have certainly been timid regarding agitation compared to your procedure. I need to think about more agitation.

Sounds like your overall procedure is good when starting to work with a new film as well.

Thanks.
Jim

Thought I would report back on my progress. I shot a roll of Tri-X as suggested by using the sunny 16 method. I should note that when I had the camera set at 1/500 sec, f/16 that the meter read sleight under-exposure, as you would expect. I then shot took pictures (for this round) at f/16, f/11, f/8, f/5.6 of several scenes. I then developed the film with the following changes in my procedure

1) Changed from Kodak D-76 to Photographers Formulary TD-16 (Improved D-76) --> ran out of Kodak, had PF on hand.
2) Developed in stock solution for 6:45 @ 20C rather than 1+1 9:45 @ 20C
3) Agitation 1st 30 sec, then 3 inversions every 30 sec rather than 3 inversions every minute (yes, I know, I was probably doing this wrong before hand)

Result

1) MUCH better negatives --> Much denser and more contrast
2) Best frames were the ones exposed between F/16 and F/11 - I guess one would expect this as well

My theory for now is that the camera was good for exposure and it was the developing that was off. I would suspect that most likely it was the agitation, and on my next roll I will expose as per meter with some bracketing, develop D-76 1+1 with agitation as specified above.

Thanks for everyone who responded. I learned some good stuff from you and will use what you suggested for dialing in my exposures to really bring out the best in my negatives.

One question that remains is that JFISH stated that, to a degree, agitation controls contrast, time controls density. Any one understand why this is the case? What is going on in the chemistry to make this so?

"One question that remains is that JFISH stated that, to a degree, agitation controls contrast, time controls density. Any one understand why this is the case? What is going on in the chemistry to make this so?"

Just ask me...I'll be glad to tell you. But first...

Unless the TD-16 is that much different than D-76 (has been years since I used TD-76 and I can only remember it came in parts to get rid of the stabilizers that Kodak uses to get all the chemicals stable for 1 packet packaging...thereby eliminating problems that can occur with those stabilizers), you are still under developing by almost a stop (push = 25% per stop of dev time, pull = -20%per stop of dev time). Use 8 minutes and REALLY see good negs...trust me. Try it.

Now, as for agitation controlling contrast. When you agitate, you are replacing the older dev. that is on the film, doing its magic, with fresh dev., which will do the same magic, but it is fresher and more active than the older stuff you just moved off the film surface by the agitation, giving you more chemical reaction/development on the film with this "newer" developer. And as we know, highlights/more exposed areas develop quicker with fresher dev. than shadows/less exposure areas do with "not so fresh/chemically active" developer does, thereby giving us more contrast. Many people confuse this with more density, but more density actually means an even increase of silver density across all the tonal values of the neg. BIG difference. A simple way to actuall see this is with a print...cause you can watch it and you can't with a neg (well, buy an IR viewer and you can but...). Put a neg in the enlarger and expose it (get the right exposure first) and develop, first with little or no agitation. Finish it out. Now expose another print, but this time, place it face up and continually rock the tray. Finish the process. Expose another, this time, flip (turn over) the print constantly during the dev. process. Finish it out. Finally, one more...go back to the first agitations scheme...little, but give it maybe 33 to 50 % more dev. time. Finish it out. Review all 4 and you will see the progress/differences each method produces. Its the same on a neg.

Any other questions...ask away.
And good luck.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Look at your shadow detail on the negatives.
If you're not getting enough, then it's underexposure.

Click to expand...

Any under development will lower the film's speed
AND result in lower contrast.

As for dilution don't worry. I'm quite sure D-76 can be
used at as much as a 1:7 dilution; 500ml one roll of

dancqu said:

Any under development will lower the film's speed
AND result in lower contrast.

As for dilution don't worry. I'm quite sure D-76 can be
used at as much as a 1:7 dilution; 500ml one roll of

Click to expand...

Sorry pressed the wrong button on my new Mac
compact all aluminum keyboard.

To continue. ; 500ml, one roll of 120. I use D-23
that way; 72F 16 minutes and agitate with solution
in and 3 inversions every two minutes, Acros. Dan

jfish said:

Unless the TD-16 is that much different than D-76 (has been years since I used TD-76 and I can only remember it came in parts to get rid of the stabilizers that Kodak uses to get all the chemicals stable for 1 packet packaging...thereby eliminating problems that can occur with those stabilizers), you are still under developing by almost a stop (push = 25% per stop of dev time, pull = -20%per stop of dev time). Use 8 minutes and REALLY see good negs...trust me. Try it.

Click to expand...

Thanks again... and my next roll will indeed see 8 minutes.