methods for more contrast???

ic-racer said:

There will be subtle differences between printing on high contrast paper and increasing contrast by increasing negative development time. Try both and see which works best for you.

Click to expand...

I agree, compensating for subject contrast through film development is very similar to compensating for negative contrast with variable-contrast (VC) papers.

RalphLambrecht said:

Thomas

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

Click to expand...

Late to respond; busy weekend. I based my statement on my own experience, things I have done myself, like making prints with FP4 and Tri-X processed in different ways so that they printed on the same paper to remarkable likeness using very similar filtration. The only reason I used two different films at all is because of shutter speeds. I like wide open.

If I want more contrast in my print, I won't change films just because of it. I just shoot and process the film I already use differently. If I introduced one more film into my work flow I would have to re-learn everything I've learned about TMY-2 again, and I'm not interested in it. It's noise in the work flow.

Instead, I change how the film appears. It's not hard, actually it's a heck of a lot easier than changing films, and I don't have to re-learn anything.

It may be that my 'lowered contrast FP4+' might not look EXACTLY like my 'normal contrast TX400' did. But in the prints it didn't seem to matter. The whole series of prints looked consistent, homogenous, and I wasn't able to tell a difference between them without going back to check my notes. That's good enough for me.

If you can measure difference, then so be it. That's where I am absolutely without experience, and can't speak with knowing anything.

In my world the whole process from exposure to print is about targeting a fairly consistent negative contrast that prints with ease in a predictable manner. If I had to use a different film that gave more contrast in the prints, I would find ways to lower that contrast to reach my target contrast so it would print like the other film did.
Isn't that what we all do? Develop our film so that it prints well on our favorite paper? Negative contrast should be targeted to fit within what's possible with your printing paper. If I have maximized the potential, or range of the paper, with a certain film (TMY-2), and I start to use Pan-F+ instead, it would be unacceptable to let the contrast of the negative go beyond what the paper can possibly handle. So I adjust how I process the film until it fits again.

I don't think I'm missing any beats. At least not any that matter to me.

I really should go make some prints instead.

Thomas

I see absolutely no contradiction between our statements.

RalphLambrecht said:

Thomas

I see absolutely no contradiction between our statements.

Click to expand...

Good, and I apologize if I made it seem that way.

It was sort of a collective answer to the whole thread, and I didn't mean to pick on you. Sorry about that.

ic-racer said:

There will be subtle differences between printing on high contrast paper and increasing contrast by increasing negative development time. Try both and see which works best for you.

Click to expand...

I would disagree with the term "subtle", while I have never tested side by side for the above, (seems such a waste of paper) my years of printing on hard contrast paper from low contrast negatives by design tells me that the best way to effect micro contrast once the film has been developed is to print on higher contrast paper rather than printing on normal contrast paper with higher contrast negs.

Consider, micro contrast is most evident in mid tones and lower, therefore increased film development does not expand those tonalities nearly as much as a one grade of paper change.

As I indicated, my opinion, however, it is based on years of printing with graded papers.

Cheers!

I've often been asked if there is any difference between applying the Zone System to get the 'perfect' negative or using VC papers instead. Years of printing lead me to the following statement:

Compensating for subject contrast through film development is very similar to compensating for negative contrast with variable-contrast (VC) papers. This does not mean that VC papers have replaced the Zone System altogether. The Zone System delivers a perfect negative, and VC papers are very tolerant of less than perfect negatives. But, when used to get the most out of a mediocre negative, VC papers leave less room to adjust for local image-contrast needs. However, when used together, Zone System and variable-contrast papers provide more creative flexibility than either one possibly could alone. For a fine-art printer, this is not an either/or decision. Both are powerful tools in their own right.

In other words, I agree with ic-racer, the differences between contrast changes caused by development changes or paper contrast changes are subtle. Due to differences in material characteristics, they are there, but with all the materials I've used so far, they are subtle.

RalphLambrecht said:

I've often been asked if there is any difference between applying the Zone System to get the 'perfect' negative or using VC papers instead. Years of printing lead me to the following statement:

Compensating for subject contrast through film development is very similar to compensating for negative contrast with variable-contrast (VC) papers. This does not mean that VC papers have replaced the Zone System altogether. The Zone System delivers a perfect negative, and VC papers are very tolerant of less than perfect negatives. But, when used to get the most out of a mediocre negative, VC papers leave less room to adjust for local image-contrast needs. However, when used together, Zone System and variable-contrast papers provide more creative flexibility than either one possibly could alone. For a fine-art printer, this is not an either/or decision. Both are powerful tools in their own right.

In other words, I agree with ic-racer, the differences between contrast changes caused by development changes or paper contrast changes are subtle. Due to differences in material characteristics, they are there, but with all the materials I've used so far, they are subtle.

Click to expand...

If you are speaking of "global" contrast I would agree, if your speaking of local / micro contrast I would heartily disagree.

Steve Sherman said:

If you are speaking of "global" contrast I would agree, if your speaking of local / micro contrast I would heartily disagree.

Click to expand...

No doubt about that, but then one must consider the source. You are by admission, a large format kind of guy. Ultra large format negatives are rarely enlarged, and it's no secret that local / micro contrast is at its most apparent in a contact print. Once you subject the negative to enlargement, some of the subtleties of local / micro contrast are lost; and the more you enlarge, the more subtleties are lost. That's just the way it is. That's the reason why people will choose medium format over miniature format, and large format over medium format if the circumstances allow for it. Assuming high quality lenses and equipment, good technique, and good materials are used, a print of a given size will always display better local contrast when made from a larger negative.

Most simply, you can overdevelop the film. You can do this by increasing development time, by reducing developer dilution, by developing at a higher temperature, etc. You can also use a developer that is designed to give the film a little kick in the teeth, such as D-19.

You can do this with or without underexposing the film, depending on what you want. Underexposing and overdeveloping increases contrast by making the low tones darker than normal, and keeping the high tones about where they would have been if the film had been exposed normally and developed normally. Normally exposing and overdeveloping increases contrast by pushing the high tones higher than they would be with normal exposure and normal development, while leaving the low tones about where they would have been if the film had been exposed and developed normally. Even if contrast is index is matched with the two methods, each utilizes different parts of the film's/developer's characteristic curve, making your printing options different.

In short, underexpose/overdevelop gives you a thinner negative, even if contrast is the same. The mid tones and high tones will be similar in density to where they would be on a normal negative. This is useful if you want to print at your normal times and do not want to have a normal amount of detail and texture in the low-toned areas of the print. The normally expose/overdevelop is useful if you might want to have a normal amount of detail and texture in the low tones, but want the high tones pushed up, and do not mind printing through a dense negative.

fschifano said:

No doubt about that, but then one must consider the source. You are by admission, a large format kind of guy. Ultra large format negatives are rarely enlarged, and it's no secret that local / micro contrast is at its most apparent in a contact print. Once you subject the negative to enlargement, some of the subtleties of local / micro contrast are lost; and the more you enlarge, the more subtleties are lost. That's just the way it is. That's the reason why people will choose medium format over miniature format, and large format over medium format if the circumstances allow for it. Assuming high quality lenses and equipment, good technique, and good materials are used, a print of a given size will always display better local contrast when made from a larger negative.

Click to expand...

I am speaking in terms which apply to all formats. Most likely many of us are speaking of the same thing using slightly different terminology which leads to confusion.

I am saying that by developing film to a lower density and printing on a more contrasty paper the "feel" of the resulting print will give an impression of higher contrast than a negative developed to a higher density with subsequent printing on a less contrasty paper.

If all one had to do to effect contrast was to increase development via time / temperature and agitation / dilution printing would be a lot more straight forward. However, there are many other factors to consider, my experience has been to design negatives with a lower contrast index with the expectation of printing on a harder contrast paper. In fact, many times I shoot early or late day and purposely use reciprosity to my advantage by creating more micro contrast within the negative. Contrast and relationship to tone which cannot be seen or measured, however, it sure does exist.

Now, I should probably include this fact, virtually never do I shoot when the sun is in the sky, in other words, where the sun casts a shadow.

What it boils down to is this, it is easy (easier) to establish D max and highlight density in a print then it is to effect the micro contrast which appeals to the maker, for me that has always been shadows exposed around zone 3.5 or 4 and highlight density to around 1.1 rather than 1.25 which is the norm.

RalphLambrecht said:

Apparently, it hasn't left you entirely. Why bring it back into this thread then?

Click to expand...

See post 59.

2F/2F is talking about giving up shadow detail, typical for a push, 1:1 "ish" film chart stuff. It's a valid exposure placement choice, not only valid but very normal.

Using 1/3:1 we give up highlights instead.

When increasing contrast we all have to make choices of what to give up, high or low, and how to meter, shadow or middle.

My points all along have been that 1 - film contrast is controlled by film development and 2 - that exposure placement is a separate issue.

markbarendt said:

My points all along have been that 1 - film contrast is controlled by film development and 2 - that exposure placement is a separate issue.

Click to expand...

And as soon as you recognise that 2 will also be able to increase contrast...

Steve Sherman said:

If you are speaking of "global" contrast I would agree, if your speaking of local / micro contrast I would heartily disagree.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm talking about overall and local contrast. 'Local' as far as a particular area of the print, such as the sky, goes. I have no idea what micro contrast is. If you're referring to acutance, I don't think that was what the OP was after.

markbarendt said:

See post 59. ...

Click to expand...

That's funny. Post #59 wasn't even written when I asked the question.

markbarendt said:

... My points all along have been that 1 - film contrast is controlled by film development and 2 - that exposure placement is a separate issue.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple, because both go hand-in-hand.
Yes, in general exposure controls the shadows and development controls the highlight and contrast. But, exposure also influences contrast, because it makes a choice which part of a non-linear characteristic curve to take, and development influences shadow detail. Extended development give more density in all zones. The effect is much greater in the highlight, and hence, the contrast increase, but it increases density in the shadows as well, which leads to an increase in film speed. This must be considered when the exposure is made.

common Zone System technique is:

1. place the shadows and determine exposure
2. measure subject brightness range
3. compare actual to intended subject brightness range
4. note development correction to achieve (3)
5. correct exposure to compensate for (4)
6. expose and mark film holder with (4)

RalphLambrecht said:

Yes, I'm talking about overall and local contrast. 'Local' as far as a particular area of the print, such as the sky, goes. I have no idea what micro contrast is. If you're referring to acutance, I don't think that was what the OP was after.

Click to expand...

The context in which I use the phrase "micro contrast" refers to how "hard" is the transition from one tonality to another adjacent tonality. Think of the contrast within something which is heavily textured, such as peeling paint or the contrast within a rock which might be lying on a beach.

Rock on a beach with sky in the background, exposure will certainly dictate where tonalities will fall within the rock but will also dictate to a certain extent where the skies tonalities will land.

My example would be if the photographer merely placed the rock in shadow on an appropriate zone, let's say 3 and then want to have some type of tonality in the sky would be bound by development, (please no filter recommendation for this discussion) let's say zone 7, on normal contrast paper this scenario would yield an easy to print negative if not a so called perfect negative. My approach would be to expose the shadowed rock on zone 4 and (which does drive the skies tonality one zone higher) and then give less development with the intention of printing on a hard contrast paper, thereby effecting more "local contrast" within the tonalities of the rock, to my way of thinking the more difficult area of the print to effect tonality relationships.

Lastly, we are in yet again a discussion where many of the posters are neither right or wrong, rather just different approaches, as our work ultimately would illustrate.

BTW, the one thing paramount to any photography discussion which has been completely ignored is "light" and the quality of light in which you choose to make negatives. A discussion demanding of it's own thread.

Q.G. said:

And as soon as you recognise that 2 will also be able to increase contrast...

Click to expand...

I'm not buying it Q.G.

Exposure placement only changes where subjects fall on the film's curve, it doesn't change the curve.

RalphLambrecht said:

That's funny. Post #59 wasn't even written when I asked the question.

Click to expand...

Yep.

RalphLambrecht said:

It's not that simple, because both go hand-in-hand.
Yes, in general exposure controls the shadows and development controls the highlight and contrast. But, exposure also influences contrast, because it makes a choice which part of a non-linear characteristic curve to take, and development influences shadow detail. Extended development give more density in all zones. The effect is much greater in the highlight, and hence, the contrast increase, but it increases density in the shadows as well, which leads to an increase in film speed. This must be considered when the exposure is made.

common Zone System technique is:

1. place the shadows and determine exposure
2. measure subject brightness range
3. compare actual to intended subject brightness range
4. note development correction to achieve (3)
5. correct exposure to compensate for (4)
6. expose and mark film holder with (4)

Click to expand...

It isn't that complicated either.

I agree that contrast is not linear across the curve, but once we define our -2, -1, N, +1, +2... processes; the curves become knowns and fixed by the physics of chemistry.

The decision of which development/contrast range to use is not always driven by the placement of shadows or an exact measured film speed.

The decision can be as simple as I like more contrast so N+1 is going to be my norm and I like where my incident meter puts my exposures on Tri-X when I set it at 320.

Steve Sherman said:

The context in which I use the phrase "micro contrast" refers to how "hard" is the transition from one tonality to another adjacent tonality. ...

Click to expand...

I'm not getting this one. Seems to be a very subjective measure.

Mark

You are stating the obvious, but for which purpose escapes me. I think we are done with this one, right?

markbarendt said:

I'm not buying it Q.G.

Exposure placement only changes where subjects fall on the film's curve, it doesn't change the curve.

Click to expand...

Moving the exposure range (horizontal distance (h)) along a non-linear curve (in other words changing the exposure placement) changes the density range (vertical distance (v)).

Since

contrast = v/h

changing exposure changes contrast.

markbarendt said:

I'm not buying it Q.G.

Exposure placement only changes where subjects fall on the film's curve, it doesn't change the curve.

Click to expand...

I'm too late, since Ralph already gave you the answer.
So perhaps a question in return: why do you assume straight curves of infinitessimal length?

Compressing highlights or shadows using exposure is as old as photography is. Have we already forgotten? Wow!

RalphLambrecht said:

I'm not getting this one. Seems to be a very subjective measure.

Click to expand...

The whole discussion has become subjective.

Exposure alone alters contrast when part of the picture lands either below or above the straight line portion of a characteristic curve. If all tones fall on the straight line with two different exposures, then contrast is the same if development is the same.

Exposure alone does not alter contrast to a notable degree in every single case. It depends on the SBR, how long the straght line is, and where all the bits of the SBR land on that straight line (i.e. exposure). Taking advantage of this is, in fact, one of the advantages of some emulsions over others for certain things (e.g. T-Max 100 over Plus-X).

In a picture in which more than one tone is photographed, development will increase contrast with or without normal exposure. Underexposing and overdeveloping will generally increase it more than normal exposing and overdeveloping at the same time used to overdevelop the underexposed film, because all tones are raised to some degree, and the more exposure an area receives, the more it is pushed. Therefore, the film with more exposure will have its contrast increased less when given the same development.

However, if the two exposures are developed to the same contrast (using different development), then they, of course, have the same contrast, and all that will effectively be different between the two is density.

However, it is near impossible to achieve exactly the same contrast if all tones to not end up on the straight line portion of a curve.

So, it is important to know the effects of both exposure and development, and to know that it will vary from situation to situation and material to material.

Also, remember that the OP simply asked for some methods of increasing contrast. He did not ask for the one method that will increase it the most, or the "best" way to do it. It seems to me that everybody has answered the OP's question correctly in some way.

2F/2F said:

However, exposure alone does not alter contrast to a notable degree in every single case. It depends on the SBR, how long the straght line is, and where all the bits of the SBR land on that straight line. Taking advantage of this is, in fact, one of the advantages of some emulsions over others for certain things (e.g. T-Max 100 over Plus-X).

Click to expand...

In my opinion and therefore completely subjective, it is nearly impossible to have all tonalities fall solely on the straight line of a film's curve. While there may be some scenario which is manipulated to effect that condition speaking in practical terms I think it more prudent to leave it at "changes to either exposure or development will effect the contrast of the negative, albeit in different ways.

I would suggest this is especially helpful for those who may not understand light, film and chemistry to the degree that many of the posters here profess too.

Cheers!

In my last post, I made no statements as to how rare or common it is for one thing to happen over another; only described what happens when they do occur.

...but IME, it is not that uncommon to have a scene land entirely on a straight line, especially with modern t-grained emulsions. As I said, it all depends on how long the straight line is, what you are shooting, and how you expose it. If you are never landing entirely on it, then you are always shooting wide SBRs and/or exposing them in such a way that they go off of the straight line...and I am not saying that this is good or bad...jus' sayin'.