methods for more contrast???

[stradibarrius]

What are some methods to achieve more contrast with B&W film.
longer Development time???
Increase exposure???

 

[Q.G.]

Reduced exposure combined with increased processing is the old, tried and tested way.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Longer development time is one way to achieve it. Increased exposure won't increase contrast, it's far more likely to reduce it, and this gradual loss of contrast will start from the highlights, being the first to reach the shoulder of the film's characteristic curve. Additionally, you can intensify your negatives in selenium toner or various sulfide toners.

 

[stradibarrius]

"Reduced exposure combined with increased processing is the old, tried and tested way."

This is basically "pushing" the film???? If it were ISO 400 would I shoot it at 800 and increase procesing by 10-20%?

"Additionally, you can intensify your negatives in selenium toner or various sulfide toners"

Intensify my negatives in Selenium???? Do I take my negative and soak it in selenium, or add a selenium step to the processing procedure?

 

[Q.G.]

"Reduced exposure combined with increased processing is the old, tried and tested way."

This is basically "pushing" the film???? If it were ISO 400 would I shoot it at 800 and increase procesing by 10-20%?

The increase in development depends on film and developer, so it's something you have to test.
But yes, that's the way.

"Additionally, you can intensify your negatives in selenium toner or various sulfide toners"

Intensify my negatives in Selenium???? Do I take my negative and soak it in selenium, or add a selenium step to the processing procedure?

Selenium toner, after processing.
There are other intensifiers available too. Basically, you 'bleach' the silver (turn it into a silver salt again), and then turn it into something that has a bit more density than the original silver.

 

[Anon Ymous]

You can selenium tone any negative at any time, after it's been fixed and washed, it doesn't have to be part of the processing procedure. You can also use a special purpose high contrast developer, like Kodak's D19, or perhaps more dilute paper developer. Obviously, you'll need to experiment to see if the results are what you wish. QG's comment about reduced exposure is also correct, as given enough exposure and prolonged development will push the densities high, perhaps too high, towards the shoulder of the film. At this point, you'll gradually lose contrast. You should also keep in mind that prolonged development and/or special developers will increase granularity. IIRC, that won't happen if you intensify a normally processed negative.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Exposure controls shadow information. Reducing your exposure simply makes your shadow detail disappear.

Development time controls contrast. Increasing your development time will result in contrasty film. Test in 10% increments till you find what works for your desired contrast goal.

I teach this to all my freshman photo students.

 

[Anon Ymous]

...There are other intensifiers available too. Basically, you 'bleach' the silver (turn it into a silver salt again), and then turn it into something that has a bit more density than the original silver.

Direct polysulfide toners can also be used and they don't require a bleaching step.

In any case, use fresh solutions, because used ones will likely have some sediment - particles in them. It does no harm to prints, but it would be disastrous for negatives (white spots at prints).

 

[pgomena]

I'll add changing film, agitation and film developer to the list. Take HC-110, for instance. It tends to give less detail in shadow and more midtone and highlight contrast. Increased agitation will keep more fresh developer moving into the film and will increase contrast. Some films are inherently more contrasty than others. (Pan F+ is a beautiful film with a shorter tonal range than, say, Tri-X)

In the end it all depends on what you want to achieve. At some point you risk losing too much shadow detail or blocking your highlights. The only way to find the right combination to suit your vision is to test the materials. There are a lot of variables to control. Scene contrast, film, exposure, developer, development (time, temperature, agitation) all play a part.

If you just have a flat negative and want more contrast, toning in selenium toner 3:1 with water for 5-10 minutes followed by hypo clear and a wash will add about 1 paper grade of contrast.

Peter Gomena

 

[georgegrosu]

If you accept less sensitive films Orwo DP 3 could be an option.
http://www.filmotec.de/English_Site/Products/DP_3_e/V-I-TI-DP3e_5.pdf
or EASTMAN Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic Negative Film.
This film is designed to duplicate images with 1.6 contrast.
Perhaps it will be a bit under developer to limit contrast at 1.0.
Sensitivity somewhere around 6 to 10 ISO.
http://img831.imageshack.us/i/orwodp3redus.jpg/
George

 

[fschifano]

Reduced exposure combined with increased processing is the old, tried and tested way.

Yes, but you don't even need to reduced the exposure. Shoot at box speed and over develop by 10% to 20% will get you there and still leave you with detail in the low end of the range. With reduced exposure, you're basically giving that up but increasing the likelihood of retaining some contrast in the highlights before they're too dense to print. It's a trade-off. Nice thing about it is that you can vary your exposure and push the development, then pick the negative that works best. It's called bracketing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

1. Increasing exposure will not, by itself, change your contrast. It will change how your shadow details are rendered.
2. If you compensate for overexposure by developing less time, you will decrease contrast.
3. Decreasing exposure (underexposure) will record less shadow detail.
4. Compensating for underexposure by developing longer will render normal highlights, mid-tones, etc, but you can't really bring back the shadow details you didn't record to begin with. So you have an incomplete tone scale.
5. Overdeveloping increases contrast, and you can over-develop in a few ways, ceterus paribus:
a. Develop longer.
b. Increase developer temperature.
c. Decrease the dilution of the developer, if it was diluted to begin with.
d. Increase agitation.
7. I would recommend developing longer and maintaining all other factors the same.

- Thomas

 

[CBG]

1. Increasing exposure will not, by itself, change your contrast. It will change how your shadow details are rendered.
2. If you compensate for overexposure by developing less time, you will decrease contrast.
3. Decreasing exposure (underexposure) will record less shadow detail.
4. Compensating for underexposure by developing longer will render normal highlights, mid-tones, etc, but you can't really bring back the shadow details you didn't record to begin with. So you have an incomplete tone scale.
5. Overdeveloping increases contrast, and you can over-develop in a few ways, ceterus paribus:
a. Develop longer.
b. Increase developer temperature.
c. Decrease the dilution of the developer, if it was diluted to begin with.
d. Increase agitation.
7. I would recommend developing longer and maintaining all other factors the same.

To Which I would add...
8. Strengthen your developer by boosting the alkalinity of what you are using. To do
that add carbonate or TSP or hydroxide to your developer.

9. Stronger developers by swapping out to more aggressive formulas.
A rough sampling of developers that come to mind in increasing order of strength:

The gentle guys
D-23 pretty mild action.
D-76 mild action.

The average guys
DK-50 average.
DK-60 average.

The tough guys
Dektol / D-72 strong but continuous tone, published as a universal developer for film and paper.
D-19 strong contrasty for technical and scientific work - continuous tone.

The thugs
D-11 intended for line work.
D-82 very strong - for badly underexposed film.

The psychopaths - for use under very low temperature conditions.
D-8 intended for extreme contrast
SD-22 amidol / catechol / hydroxide

 

[nworth]

The method you choose depends on your situation. Here are a few:

Filters. If the problem is distinction between objects in the scene of different color, often the best approach is to use a filter when taking the shot.

Film: Some films are more contrasty than others. Slow, ultrafine-grained films are often contrasty.

Develop longer. Increased development mostly yields more contrast. As mentioned above, you can compensate for the increased density by adjusting the exposure. A 15 to 20 percent increase in development generally gives about a one paper grade increase in contrast, Check the manufacturer's data sheets for details on any particular film.

Develop stronger. A high contrast developer like D-19 or a paper developer will yield very high contrast, continuous tone negatives. Just reducing the dilution will have some effect.

Print stronger. Just print on a higher contrast paper grade. Grade 3 works well and is considered to be "normal" by many 35mm photographers. Grade 4 and above gets quite tricky, but can be used.

Intensification. Intensification with selenium toner was mentioned above. It works very well for the occasional flat negative. It will generally give you 1/2 to 1 paper grade more contrast.

In any case, be careful not tomake the negative so contrasty that you lose important shadow details or block the highlights.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Film: Some films are more contrasty than others. Slow, ultrafine-grained films are often contrasty.

Even if it were true that Agfa APX25 had more inherent contrast than APX400, it is possible to lower the contrast of the APX25 to be on the same level as APX400, and - more importantly - the reverse is true as well.

So I absolutely think it's incorrect to say that one film has more contrast than another, because it depends on how you process it.

For example, I used to use Kodak Tri-X 400 and Ilford FP4+ side by side. I did this because I was using a Rolleiflex camera, for which I did not have ND filters to shoot wide open, or close to it, in the middle of the day using Tri-X 400 only.
I exposed Tri-X at 200 and FP4+ at 80. I processed Tri-X for 13 minutes using Pyrocat at 1:1:100 dilution, and the FP4+ for 15 minutes using 1:1:150 dilution.
This effectively gave me negatives of the same contrast, and prints that were remarkably similar from one film to another.
Had I not taken the precaution of diluting the developer 50% more with FP4, those negs would have had more contrast.

- Thomas

 

[MattKing]

Modify the light source, to add contrast.

 

[markbarendt]

There are three ways.

As Matt suggests, change the lighting.

The second option is film development.

The third option is your print grade choice.

Over & under-exposure essentially changes the placement of the subjects in the scene, not the contrast. With no other changes and a straight print, extra exposure will simply show more shadow detail and less highlight detail in the print. What you gain at one end is technically lost at the other.

What I am finding is that getting contrast (the look) right in a print is a separate issue from getting all the details on paper.

I get the contrast clean and close then burn and dodge to get the details.

 

[Q.G.]

Underexposure and subsequent adjusted processing will increase contrast. If you are merely sliding the entire scene along the straight portion of the curve, you're simply not underexposing enough.
You will lose detail in the darker bits, yes. But that's what happens when you increase contrast.
The extended processing part of the procedure moves the highlights up the curve, while not doing that to the dark bits (mostly missing, remember?). So contrast grows.

 

[Steve Sherman]

So I absolutely think it's incorrect to say that one film has more contrast than another, because it depends on how you process it.

- Thomas

The above statement on it's face is accurate, however, there are films whose contrast profile is higher than another. That is to say the shape of their respective S curves are quite different. My experience with Ilford FP 4 is tells me that the film rises out of the toe and into a more abrupt and longer straight line than Ilford's HP5. Ilford's HP5 is more gradually into the straight line and especially true as the film begins to flatten out going into the shoulder of the S curve. Tri-X is similar as far as the shoulder goes.

Still another way to effect maximum contrast is Reduced Agitation Development, there are many threads discussing RAD most of which debate the "increased acutance" of tonalities. However, the fact that RAD can significantly altered the tonalities and perception of a film's contrast is where the creative possibilities really lie for those who really understand and appreciate the technique.

Cheers

 

[Q.G.]

Thomas' statement asserts that there is a way to equalize the different contrast of different emulsions, going on to use that as proof that there is no such difference in contrast.
A nice example of a logical fallacy.

 

[markbarendt]

Underexposure and subsequent adjusted processing will increase contrast.

Exposure choice is a separate issue and not required for a contrast change.

If you are merely sliding the entire scene along the straight portion of the curve, you're simply not underexposing enough. You will lose detail in the darker bits, yes. But that's what happens when you increase contrast.

Exposure and contrast choices are all about "placement" and "fitting" what's important onto the media.

Once the contrast range choice (development regimen) has been made, exposure choices just slide zones up or down (on or off) the film's curve.

If we go to the zone system (see "The Negative" by AA) and think in terms of expansion and contraction rather than push and pull we place the shadows where we want them (and therefore do not lose any detail there) and develop for the highlights (so that we don't lose any detail there either).

Exposure adjustments for expansion and contraction are small, the normal EI for a film may only need to be adjusted by 1/3 or 1/2 a stop, it is nothing more than an accommodation of the change in chemical processing.

Adjusting contrast simply to match a scene to the film (at near box speed) is completely different from say pushing which is done to adapt a "slower" film to a "faster" application.

 

[Q.G.]

Yet, you can't help but increase contrast when you push a film.

That is the thing doing things behind AA's contraction and expansion.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... So I absolutely think it's incorrect to say that one film has more contrast than another, because it depends on how you process it. ...

Thomas

Even when keeping processing constant, some emulsion have more contrast than others.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Exposure choice is a separate issue and not required for a contrast change. ...

Mark

Development has an effect on film speed. Exposure compensation is therefore required for a contrast change if you want two negatives with similar shadow detail. If you don't have that, you cannot reliably measure the difference in contrast between the two negatives.

A change in development always goes along with a change in exposure.

 

[markbarendt]

Yet, you can't help but increase contrast when you push a film.

That is the thing doing things behind AA's contraction and expansion.

These concepts are not the same.

A push is "made up" of two parts; 1 - a significant change in EI 1, 2, or 3 full stops, and 2 - a change in development process to "rescue" the over/under exposed film from it's non-standard application.

When applying expansion and contraction we do not want any change in EI, we are using film at essentially is box or tested speed. Expansion and contraction are purely adjustments used to make printing easier and improve quality.