Low contrast scenes

[timbo10ca]

This question was the second part to another post, and seems to have gotten swallowed up and forgotten, therefore a separate thread:
I am wondering how people get such a large tonal range in flat/low contrast scenes, and in scenes where the areas of bright highlight and dark shadow are too small to take a meter reading from. Do you place a grey card in the scene, select you exposure based on that, or a stop or 2 below (to compensate for increased development time), then really increase development? Or do you photograph it flat then use a high paper grade? I don't see how a high paper grade would work, because so much detail is lost in the shadows and highlights when that is done, and the photos I've seen have lost no detail at all. A number of examples that stick out in my head are the photos that many have done of trailside leaves (e.g. front cover of AA's "The Print", Sexton's "Agave Detail"). JBrunner has a great example in his "Botanicals" gallery. Jason! How you do dat!?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Decrease exposure. There is much more seperation between lower exposure zones than there is between lighter ones. And then augment development appropriately and print to your liking.

 

[timbo10ca]

Decrease exposure. There is much more seperation between lower exposure zones than there is between lighter ones. And then augment development appropriately and print to your liking.

Cool- thanks. So would you just expose for zone 3 for the general area (if there was no specific "shadow" you could meter) then increase development?

Tim

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I would just do it a step at a time. Zone IV, nice and simple one stop and see how you like it and season to taste.

 

[timbo10ca]

I would just do it a step at a time. Zone IV, nice and simple one stop and see how you like it and season to taste.

Thanks- will do

 

[snallan]

If the areas of highlight and shadow are too small to meter from, I would select a good area to meter, and decide where I would like to place that in the scene. Say there was a building that had very little highlight or shadow detail, but a large area of wood cladding that I would like to be slightly darker than a mid-gray. I would meter on the wood, and reduce the exposure by around a stop.

Then, if the contrast range in the scene was very short, I would reduce the exposure by another stop (if really low contrast, by another two stops), and increase my development for the film; generally around 15 - 20% for a one stop reduction, perhaps as much as 25% for a two stop reduction in exposure. This is where a little testing of your film/exposure/development comes in handy, as it gives you a good indication of how much you will have to adjust for a given scene.

Basically. The longer the development, the greater the contrast index of the negative, but also the shadows will become denser; therefore adjust for the shadows by reducing the exposure.

 

[2F/2F]

It can be tough, if not impossible, to get a lot of expansion into a neg that is shot in *totally* flat conditions. Additionally, sharp detail can be hard to render in these situations, due to the totally even and diffused light everywhere. Therefore even if you tweak things to add more contrast, it can look rather odd in the end, with very flat dark areas of the print. No matter how much contrast you add or remove, you are still stuck with the basic quality of light that existed at the scene. So, it would probably be best to really think long and hard about how you want to render the scene, keeping in mind that no matter what you do, you will not get the ultra-sharp, ultra detailed look that comes from a certain quality of light that just cannot be present in a flat lighting situation. Every artist has a different idea of what he or she wants to print. I would personally think that this kind of scene would scream to be printed as a beautiful long-scaled midtoned print, giving up on the standard black-to-white print.

But as long as there is about three "stops" at the scene of exposure, you can get a somewhat "normal-looking" print if you are a good printer. What you want to do is make an exposure that will place the range of luminances at the scene (let's say three "stops" in this example) on a strip of your S curve that will allow you to add the most contrast with development and toning, then develop to N+2, if you can get there without introducing what you consider to be unacceptable levels of fog and grain (the larger the format the better, for this reason), and then tone the neg in a strong selenium bath to push it even farther.

When you make this exposure, however, you also have to consider where you want your last detail (III) and last texture (II) to be on the print. If you want texture on something, you don't want to place it below II. If you want detail, you don't want to place it below III. It would add the most contrast if you were to place the darkest luminance in the scene on zone 0 or I, but you would lose detail and texture at the expense of this contrast. It all comes down to where you want to make the compromises, as they cannot be avoided.

Personally, if I were shooting for a versatile negative in a scene with a range of luminances that was three "stops", this is what I would do:

1. Find the darkest area of the scene where I want texture on the print. Instead of placing this on zone II, I would place it on zone III, as I know for sure that I will have to print on a hard paper, which will push it down in printing. Having it on zone III will not maximize contrast index of the neg, because it moves the whole luminance range up the S curve. However, it will give you enough meat to manipulate the local contrast in this area via dodging and burning when you go to print. Like I said, it's a balancing act. Anything you do that is ideal for one effect will not be ideal for another.

2. This would make the highest luminance value at the scene fall on V. I know with my favorite zone system film, with a combination of development and toning, I can get darned near a net +3, which would have a zone V fall end up at a near zone VIII. So I would develop to N+2, which is as far as I have tested for, and then tone.

3. I would end up with a neg that should theoretically print from zones III to near-VIII with normal printing on my target paper, plus any shadow values that [hopefully] fell below those that I placed on III. However, the extreme development will also have raised the value of that zone III placement a bit. But that is OK, because this just means I can print on an even harder paper without losing that area.

All of this is assuming a wanted a fairly normal looking print, or at least just a versatile neg.

The reason I have had no problems getting to N+2, while others cannot, is that my target paper for my development testing is a grade 3, not a grade 2. I do this so I can either go up one grade or down one grade in printing, given the limited selection of grades now available. I like having the option of one grade below the target paper. This means that my normal development is flatter than is traditional, so my N+s are flatter as well. This means that what I call my N+2 is the same as what most would call N+1. If I tested for it, I bet I could get up to an N+2.5 (or maybe even N+3?) with development alone. I love HP5!

 

[RobC]

why don't you use a high contrast film? Most of them are pretty slow films and orthochromatic but one is http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/menu.htm which is panchromatic.
I guess if you are doing hanheld then maybe its not suitable but if you are on a tripod, then why not?

 

[Larry Bullis]

We've been discussing, over on another thread, a developer that was specifically designed for that kind of light situation: Edwal 12. It has a way of allowing local contrast to have a much enhanced appearance, "snap" even if the overall contrast is soft. Neat stuff. It was the bread and butter of many of the old timers who used it when Harvey's 777 wasn't right for the situation. It loves to make contrast. Germain's formula is a variant, and does the same thing.

I live in the Pacific NW south of Vancouver BC. It is flat here, too, so I've done lots of shooting in dull situations.

Metering. I'd be careful of applying generalized formulae. The first thing I'd look at is how I'm metering in the first place. If I include the sky in a general reading, even if it is abysmally flat, it will result in underexposure unless corrected. So, I would exclude the sky in the reading even if including it in the scene. The sky, however dull, is the light source.

If I feel the need for precise readings, I will go to the trouble to create a shadow with my body that simulates those that are under things, read that, and place as appropriate, then develop to produce the highlights I want. The aforementioned increase of density in shadow areas is an important point to consider. Familiarity with the particular curves that my film and developer produce can be very helpful. It is important to keep the middle tones out of the toe area, because the best separation is in the midrange "straight line" part of the curve. Enough exposure is important because unless it is given, the sky will fall in the straight line rather than on the shoulder where it belongs, and it would be very hard to get detail in it. If it is in the right part of the curve, chances of saving the detail in clouds, etc, are much improved.

It is surprising how dark shadows can be in those "revealing light" situations, where most shadows are cancelled by overcast. In general, I'd suspect that even a straight reading wouldn't be at all bad. I'd avoid too much low placement, i.e. placing the whole scene at z3 as mentioned. I'd fear having too much of the scene down in the toe, which would give a real strange look and the sky would rocket out of sight, since it would be in the midrange to begin with.

Play with some brackets. That ought to help.

 

[JBrunner]

Efke 25 builds contrast like crazy, as well. It's my go to stock for flat scenery.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I ought to mention, as an addendum to my previous post, that the single most important factor is the exposure. Getting that wrong makes it really hard, and it's easy to get it wrong. That just as often results from trying to second guess the scene, trying to control too much, as it does from simple error.

In my experience, I've found that for normal looking scenes (not the Ansel's leaves, the Minor White stuff, etc.) is is quite rare that anything more than a +1 is really needed. I'm always suspicious when my reasoning suggests a +2, although it does happen sometimes. +2 and above attenuates the values, possibly producing a technically great print that just doesn't look right.

The reason I suggested brackets above isn't to save your skin, it's to assist in dealing with learning. Try some with your rationale recorded, then see how they print. You can bracket development, too.

One more: Slower films show contrast gradients more clearly and generally better than faster ones in producing enhanced contrasts, even with normal development. I can't recommend Edwal 12 too highly. It's great for this kind of thing.

 

[JBrunner]

Tim,

It was alluded to a bit in the other thread, in regard to AA's examples, and I'm wondering if you also aren't expecting a lot from an un-manipulated print.

Here are scans of a straight print (I think it scanned a little hot), arrived at to establish the base exposure for this negative, and the print after dodging and burning.

 

[timbo10ca]

It can be tough, if not impossible, to get a lot of expansion into a neg that is shot in *totally* flat conditions. Additionally, sharp detail can be hard to render in these situations, due to the totally even and diffused light everywhere. Therefore even if you tweak things to add more contrast, it can look rather odd in the end, with very flat dark areas of the print. No matter how much contrast you add or remove, you are still stuck with the basic quality of light that existed at the scene. So, it would probably be best to really think long and hard about how you want to render the scene, keeping in mind that no matter what you do, you will not get the ultra-sharp, ultra detailed look that comes from a certain quality of light that just cannot be present in a flat lighting situation. Every artist has a different idea of what he or she wants to print. I would personally think that this kind of scene would scream to be printed as a beautiful long-scaled midtoned print, giving up on the standard black-to-white print.

But as long as there is about three "stops" at the scene of exposure, you can get a somewhat "normal-looking" print if you are a good printer. What you want to do is make an exposure that will place the range of luminances at the scene (let's say three "stops" in this example) on a strip of your S curve that will allow you to add the most contrast with development and toning, then develop to N+2, if you can get there without introducing what you consider to be unacceptable levels of fog and grain (the larger the format the better, for this reason), and then tone the neg in a strong selenium bath to push it even farther.

When you make this exposure, however, you also have to consider where you want your last detail (III) and last texture (II) to be on the print. If you want texture on something, you don't want to place it below II. If you want detail, you don't want to place it below III. It would add the most contrast if you were to place the darkest luminance in the scene on zone 0 or I, but you would lose detail and texture at the expense of this contrast. It all comes down to where you want to make the compromises, as they cannot be avoided.

Personally, if I were shooting for a versatile negative in a scene with a range of luminances that was three "stops", this is what I would do:

1. Find the darkest area of the scene where I want texture on the print. Instead of placing this on zone II, I would place it on zone III, as I know for sure that I will have to print on a hard paper, which will push it down in printing. Having it on zone III will not maximize contrast index of the neg, because it moves the whole luminance range up the S curve. However, it will give you enough meat to manipulate the local contrast in this area via dodging and burning when you go to print. Like I said, it's a balancing act. Anything you do that is ideal for one effect will not be ideal for another.

2. This would make the highest luminance value at the scene fall on V. I know with my favorite zone system film, with a combination of development and toning, I can get darned near a net +3, which would have a zone V fall end up at a near zone VIII. So I would develop to N+2, which is as far as I have tested for, and then tone.

3. I would end up with a neg that should theoretically print from zones III to near-VIII with normal printing on my target paper, plus any shadow values that [hopefully] fell below those that I placed on III. However, the extreme development will also have raised the value of that zone III placement a bit. But that is OK, because this just means I can print on an even harder paper without losing that area.

All of this is assuming a wanted a fairly normal looking print, or at least just a versatile neg.

The reason I have had no problems getting to N+2, while others cannot, is that my target paper for my development testing is a grade 3, not a grade 2. I do this so I can either go up one grade or down one grade in printing, given the limited selection of grades now available. I like having the option of one grade below the target paper. This means that my normal development is flatter than is traditional, so my N+s are flatter as well. This means that what I call my N+2 is the same as what most would call N+1. If I tested for it, I bet I could get up to an N+2.5 (or maybe even N+3?) with development alone. I love HP5!

What a wonderfully explicit answer- makes total sense.
Thanks

Tim

 

[timbo10ca]

Rob, bowzart and Jason:

Thank you as well. these are all great insights for me. I feel I have some excellent tools now to tackle these situations, once I finish getting my basics under control. I'm using Pyrocat HD, and Steve Sherman has been very kind in emailing me his VC articles on reduced agitation techniques. I have great tools in hand indeed

Tim

 

[2F/2F]

Glad it helped.

Let me add to the following:

"3. I would end up with a neg that should theoretically print from zones III to near-VIII with normal printing on my target paper, plus any shadow values that [hopefully] fell below those that I placed on III. However, the extreme development will also have raised the value of that zone III placement a bit. But that is OK, because this just means I can print on an even harder paper without losing that area."

The straight print would not be a full-scale print, but the neg would be such that you*could* get one with manipulation in printing. III - VIII is not full scale. If I wanted a true full-scale print, I would have to print on a harder paper...to bump the darks down and the lights up. I would also have to manipulate the print, as everyone is stressing.

Then again, don't just aim for a full-scale print all the time. Aim for the print you want.

 

[sanking]

One very effective method which has not been mentioned is reduced agitation with very dilute developer solutions. This method increases micro contrast and allows for both expansion and contraction development.

Steve Sherman has championed this type of development and published two articles on the subject in View Camera a couple of years ago. He has also discussed the issue on this forum on several occassions.


Sandy King

 

[Christopher Walrath]

There is some great processing info here for contrast that I am going to adapt to my own routines as needed. Especially once I have my 4x5 setup really up and running. Thank you for the remarks, all.

 

[Steve Sherman]

It can be tough, if not impossible, to get a lot of expansion into a neg that is shot in *totally* flat conditions. Additionally, sharp detail can be hard to render in these situations, due to the totally even and diffused light everywhere. Therefore even if you tweak things to add more contrast, it can look rather odd in the end, with very flat dark areas of the print. No matter how much contrast you add or remove, you are still stuck with the basic quality of light that existed at the scene.


The reason I have had no problems getting to N+2, while others cannot, is that my target paper for my development testing is a grade 3, not a grade 2. I do this so I can either go up one grade or down one grade in printing, given the limited selection of grades now available. I like having the option of one grade below the target paper. This means that my normal development is flatter than is traditional, so my N+s are flatter as well. This means that what I call my N+2 is the same as what most would call N+1. If I tested for it, I bet I could get up to an N+2.5 (or maybe even N+3?) with development alone. I love HP5!

Tim,

The first paragraph here is exacting what I am talking about with regard to Reduced Agitation development. These types of scenes can be portrayed with a full range of tonalities. You must understand that this type development is unlike any other method of development and therefore foreign to those who have never used the process.

With almost all B&W photography, contrast is a function of subject reflectance and the intensity of light which strikes the subject. Conventionally, the only means to expand contrast is to expose less and develop more, harder contrast papers and to lesser degrees chemistry, reciprocity and filtration can have a small effect.

With this form of development, contrast is not dependent on light intensity or exposure. Contrast or "micro contrast" (which gives the impression of contrast) will be a function of developer exhaustion and agitation intervals.

I have a good friend who accuses the process of "destroying the original integrity of the scene, just like Photoshop." I respond by saying I know of no computer which works in wet chemistry.

See this link here for an indepth ddepth discussion of a photograph I made using Semi-Stand dev. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The second paragraph talks about HP5 and it contrast expanding properties, HP5 by design is a lower contrast film than many modern films. Tri-X, FP-4, Efke 100 all have a higher contrast index built into them at the time of manufacture. While nothing has the contrast building capabilities of T Max films. In other words they have a shorter toe and longer straight line to allow contrast to expand.

The beauty of using either FP 4 or T Max with reduced agitation dev. is the longer the straight line the the more you can expand contrast and the more you can compress contrast without losing vital micro contrast.

Reduced Agitation dev. is not an easy process to master, it is more unpredictable than other more benign methods of development. However, when mastered you will be able to photograph any scene in any lighting conditions and control the end result to a greater degree than any other method I know of. I realize this is a brash statement to make, but like they say "when you can back it up it really isn't bragging".

 

[timbo10ca]

Thanks again everybody. Sandy, I'm linking to a thread on the LF site, if you don't mind. It has to do with your recommendations for dilutions for different types of reduced agitation (I posted a question for you over there pertaining to these recommendations)- It may be useful to those here who use Pyrocat HD.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=367371#post367371

Tim

 

[Larry Bullis]

All very interesting. Thanks.

 

[2F/2F]

Steve is right about highly dilute reduced agitation development. It is what I do for almost everything. Ilford HC, 1:63, 75F, longer developing times with reduced agitation. I start off agitating as normal, then half as much, then half as much again.

I love HP5 simply because of the versatility. As Steve said, it is not the best film for increasing the contrast of a scene. But I am of the Learn One Film Backwards and Forwards Before Messing Around Too Much With Others Camp, and HP5 is that film for me. I find it more simple that way. To me, simplicity matters to some degree, even when using the zone system. I have 5 films "zoned" in my C33 in HC-110, and Tri-X in 4x5. Since I switched to Ilford HC instead, I have retested only with medium format FP4 and HP5, and switched to HP5 in 4x5. (I like it better than Tri-X for most things, and don't see myself using Tri-X again...no complaint against Tri-X, just a preference now that I have tried HP5 in sheets.) Eventually I will get around to getting all my old films down on the new developer...although HC-110 and HC have turned out to be very very close for me so far!

 

[Larry Bullis]

Steve,

I'm sure that you have figured this into the equation. In an oxydation/reduction situation like development, the reaction will continue until either it is stopped or one of the components in the reaction is depleted. So if we dilute the developer way down, how can we be sure that there is sufficient reducing agent available to process the amount of film present? It seems to me that if we run out, it's over.

I'm no chemist; I suppose if I were I could figure it out. Otherwise, I suppose we could insure ourselves by using a large amount of developer. How do you deal with this?

Thanks,

Larry

 

[juan]

Larry, I use an method similar to Steve's. I do, in fact, use a good bit of developer. When developing an individual sheet of 8x10, I use 1250ml of Pyrocat PC at 1:1:150 in a tube. If I were doing constant agitation in a tray, I'd use 500ml at 1:1:100. The amount for the tube development was simply what it took to fill the tube, but it has worked out well.
juan

 

[JBrunner]

I think Tim's problem isn't related to not using an "exotic" development method.

I think there is something more fundamental at work that needs to be sorted out, and that he needs to discover full control of his basic process rather than chasing after a magic bullet.

Processing nuances are fun, but Tim currently lacks a proper point of departure into that realm.

 

[Larry Bullis]

When developing an individual sheet of 8x10, I use 1250ml of Pyrocat PC at 1:1:150 in a tube. If I were doing constant agitation in a tray, I'd use 500ml at 1:1:100.
juan

Juan,

I suppose that using the amount of developer one normally would use in a small tank, and using a larger tank instead, diluting proportionally to the tank size could be a safe way to go.

Thanks. Good information.