My love/hate relationship with negative contrast and density

markbarendt said:

You are right David, in that there are still limits to the film's range. It is worth finding those limits.

I honestly don't think the films limits are what you're struggling with here though.

I think you are stuck between scenes, where the tones in nature aren't falling where you want them, and not wanting to burn and dodge.

Click to expand...

You want your subject to fit within a density range on your negative that can be resolved by the printing paper (or the scanner). Modern films have a greater range than the paper. If you are exploiting the films limits, you will end up with a print with either blown highlights, lack of shadow detail or both. Of course you could do some dodging and burning to salvage your negative, but it will limit your options during the printing stage. Especially if you are using a condenser lens in your enlarger, you really have to consider this carefully.

jonasfj

We are expressing the same ideas.

I don't see a negative that needs some burn or dodge as a problem or a limitation. The negative is just a storage device for use between scene and paper

Guys,

I have worked out a personal ISO and development time following the Kodak method, as explained in an excellent way by Mr. Halfhill. Basically it means tailoring the characteristic curve to fit your work flow, developer and photographic paper. It has made a huge difference. Now I consistently get a a good first print using filter II on Ilford Multigrade Classic. So far I did this with Ilford FP4+ and TMAX 400.

The picture below might not be a great picture, but hopefully it may illustrate my point. For a normal subject (less than 10 stops dynamic range) using FP4+ I set my light meter to ISO 80 reduce development by about 10-20%. This will give me a great starting point printing Ilford MG FB at filter II. The rest is up to creative decision making.

My workflow is as follows: I measure the light in my palm and adjust 1 stop, expose, develop in XTOL 1:1 or 1:3, enlarger with condenser lens, Ilford MG FB Classic paper.

Now scanning is a completely different animal, but I hope you at least agree that the exposure is alright.

Cheers,

Jonas

jonasfj said:

but I hope you at least agree that the exposure is alright.

Click to expand...

Jonas

The print exposure looks fine.

The negative exposure had to be reasonably close to do your print but what we are getting at is that negative exposure does not need to be spot on.

For me that reasonable range with FP4 is roughly from 1 under to 2 over, so 4 stops wide. Typically, if I'm in that range I can make the print I want.

What that means is that the specific camera exposure isn't evident in a print.

I've never like the mushy look of images that the original scene was very high contrast and the film underdeveloped so much that the local contrast goes flat. I'd rather do some dodging and burning. That stated, when (if) I ever build another darkroom and get back into large format shooting/printing then I'll be making dodging masks made on a PC and printed on transparency material. These will be mounted above the film on the top side of the carrier, so slightly out of focus. Once a mask is made then dodging (and de facto burning) will be automatic, easy and extremely consistent.

markbarendt said:

...The negative is just a storage device for use between scene and paper

Click to expand...

But it can be more than that. Sorry, just felt the need to say that. I know and appreciate AA's comment about the score and the performance, but for me, everything from seeing the scene to the print (matted and framed) is the performance...for an audience of one, except for the finished print which is (hopefully) enjoyed by others.

ONF: I agree, but I handle that thru scene and print-process selection. For example, under the redwoods and the end process being silver gelatin, I prefer to work in overcast conditions, between 10am and 2pm. One of the reasons I love carbon printing is being able to photograph under the redwoods in sunny weather -- I get to work with a whole different quality of light.

michael_r said:

I disagree. Fitting the negative to the paper means you lose control over local contrast for the sake of making a straight print. Suppose you have a high contrast subject and develop the negative to fit the paper range. That implies the print will have low local contrast throughout. This may or may not be what you want.

Click to expand...

That is a very good point: just because that image's tones 'fit' the paper perfectly, that print might appear drab because, by necessity, the mid-tones will not be given full bloom and must be somewhat truncated in order 'to make room' for the shadows and highlights (which are permitted equal merit on the characteristic curve). Thus the only alternative to that situation would be either to compress the highlights and/or shadows or remove either from the curve, entirely.

This was the crux of my dilemma, in that subjectivity MUST, at times, be permitted to deviate from what 'fits' in order to preserve the mood wanted. My frustration stems from 'wanting it all' and I cannot always have that because a print is limited in tonal scope. - David Lyga

Vaughn said:

But it can be more than that. Sorry, just felt the need to say that. I know and appreciate AA's comment about the score and the performance, but for me, everything from seeing the scene to the print (matted and framed) is the performance...

Click to expand...

For Ansel, that 'score' had to be perfectly captured or else the orchestra would not have been able to perform properly. So, in a way, you are correct: Ansel DID consider the fabrication of the negative to be a component of the score and ALSO the performance.

In classical music, there are different publishers of scores: for example, Schirmer's (interpretive), or an Urtext version (which embodies the originality of the composer without qualification or publisher's interpretation). Making that score, thus, becomes a definite component of the final 'performance', as does the decision to process that negative normally, or, instead, with deviation in order to impart a wanted 'interpretation'. - David Lyga

David, you want to save your cake and eat it too. Dig-it-all stacking?

Surely you can use the negative as you please Vaughn and apply whatever constraints you please on how you work. I believe we all do this to some extent.

For example I've made a choice to generally develop my film normally because that's what normally provides the contrast rate I like in prints, regardless of the scene.

David, surely Ansel tried to get a perfect negative, but given all the examples of his manipulation of his printing...

Look, I do not look at Ansel as the 'Second Coming of Jesus Christ', like the marketing apparatus in this country does! He, himself, was shocked by the notoriety he got. And the money ...! Really, why? He had the money to take his time during the Great Depression and made photographs that no one else had the time or money to do, in an unsullied environment, to boot. Yes, his pictures were magnificent, but take a walk some day along the practice rooms at Juilliard and know, know, know, that the overwhelming musicianship you hear will never amount to any fame. The expertise is assuredly there, but, the competition is yet more overwhelming. That is life: it takes more than expertise.

Yes, he manipulated and KNEW how to manipulate. But many others can do as well given his opportunities. Does that admission make me vile? Or does it set things back into perspective? - David Lyga

Erroneous repetition, see above.

I seldom see you get upset, David. Whattup, dude?

markbarendt said:

David, surely Ansel tried to get a perfect negative, but given all the examples of his manipulation of his printing...

Click to expand...

Print manipulations are not necessarily a "compromise" or a compensation for a less-than-perfect negative. I regularly plan manipulations at the time of making the negative. For example, for a contrasty scene that a pedantic Zone System practitioner might develop N-2 (to squeeze shadows and highlights into the paper's range), I will indicate N-1 or even N, in full awareness that I'll have to do some extensive dodging and burning, but wanting to keep local contrast higher in important elements of the scene. As Michael mentions, it's about what kind of local contrast you want and knowing how to go about getting the best print given the limitations of the medium.* For me, local contrast has priority and I base my development scheme on that, in full awareness that the negative might be a bear to print.

For me, this is a logical extension of the Zone System that requires a little deeper understanding of the characteristics of film and paper than the "basic" Zone System that simply tries to match negative density range to the paper range.

Now, we all have less-than-adequate negatives that require triage in the darkroom, but planning for manipulations can be part of the original visualization as well.

*David, It seems to me that you are simply railing against the limits of the medium here instead of embracing them. Film and paper work the way they work. Recognizing the "weaknesses" and what can be done to ameliorate them is part of mastering the medium. Accepting the things we cannot change is a big part of this too.

Best,

Doremus

David, I don't understand why you would be considered vile for that.

The questions here are those of art and science. The science is easy, once you trust the math, but the science is regularly at odds with our artistic bend.

This tension makes us want to bend the science, but the math doesn't bend.

Doremus Scudder said:

Print manipulations are not necessarily a "compromise" or a compensation for a less-than-perfect negative.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm saying.

But even a perfect negative doesn't always have all the subject matter perfectly placed. The exception being an artificially lit scene.

David, I think you're complaining about something you (we) have no control over. We all must accept the medium's (and our) limitations and make the best of them. Or... to mitigate the limitations you are concerned about... just go digital and stack multiple images.

We don't stick with analog because it's easier. We stick with it because it's tradition and challenging and BECAUSE of the limitations... this challenges our expertise.

Not giving up, are you?

I've been going through my old negatives from 1979 looking for misplaced/misfiled strips.

Still missing one strip that includes a difficult to print frame that I really had hopes for... but it was impossible to print.

For now, I am happy I can't find the negative...


But my point is that the search for better exposed and better developed negatives.... is basically part of a feedback loop that takes you from recognizing a type of negative from which you never want to have to print again.

In short, that's why I don't push unless absolutely necessary, and faced with extremes such as the Jumbled House, I'll make sure to give enough exposure for the shadows. The averaging meter reading would not necessarily recommend enough, so a little care when making the meter reading could have helped.

jonasfj said:

What do you mean?

Click to expand...

In my opinion, I mean:

That you are completely wrong when you say that "The characteristic curve can look anyway you want it to look", but we agree that you are free to use it the way you want

I mean

That Mr. Method worflow can vary the same way "your workflow and my workflow..." do vary.

I mean

That you have answered yourself when you say that there are "... many other variables", by being that Mr. Method, another one variable.

Excuse me markbarendt, if you think this sentence may apply to you ...

markbarendt said:

I don't see a negative that needs some burn or dodge as a problem or a limitation.

Click to expand...

Obviously by that reason comes this other one...

markbarendt said:

The negative is just a storage device for use between scene and paper

Click to expand...

But I could not disagree more (with both). First because it is not a question of being a problem or a limitation, it's only a individual technical choice, second because "the negative" among many other things to explain long and hard (and with the permission of the positives, or others outputs registered that you left behind, in addition to the paper) is not an intermediate step.

After 52 years in the darkroom I still cannot decide whether I like more fully exposed negatives (which grant more shadow detail but less highlight separation) or less exposed negatives (which skimp on shadow detail but allow for more brilliant highlight separation). Do any of you face the same dilemma?


Hi David - that's a long time in the darkroom without having a definite answer to your question.

The dilemma I have faced my whole career as a printer for others, is I was not always in control of the film , exposure, selection , and in recent cases the development of said film was done by others.
Like many here I have found that film contains much information and the role of the printer is to put as much of the critical information on paper in a way that is believable to the viewer.

Bill Brandt style of print requires a much different negative than a Jock Sturges, actually I cannot think of two different printers further from each other.
One requires a thin negative with good highlight detail that may suffer in shadow detail, but the printer then went to a very high grade to build up intense contrast.
the other requires a heavier shadow detail and then printed on a much softer grade to reveal a complete range of view able tones.

I have found that Lith prints and solarization prints work well with a thin negative with lots of detail - whereas the printer pulls when the blacks explode or tames incredible contrast with flash.

Recently I finished a gallery show where 40 different negative, from 40 different locations and era's were given to me. The negatives were different types, developers and processed by
different people, the one constant was the photographer.
For this project my role was to make a 70's style print with as much detail in both ends , but due to the range the mid tone contrast was boosted to give the work pop and most of my time was spent
aiming for a believable black and highlight.
I cannot tell you what that curve would look like , I would thing there would be a upwards surge in the middle but others here have better knowledge on this and could explain with graphs.

I think what many are expressing here is once you decide what style of print you like, hard, or soft, or light open , or heavy and closed, you then are pretty much assured with simple calculations
at the front end you can easily produce a negative that can make the type of print you want.

Bob

Bob Carnie said:

Bill Brandt style of print requires a much different negative than a Jock Sturges, actually I cannot think of two different printers further from each other.
One requires a thin negative with good highlight detail that may suffer in shadow detail, but the printer then went to a very high grade to build up intense contrast.
the other requires a heavier shadow detail and then printed on a much softer grade to reveal a complete range of view able tones.


I think what many are expressing here is once you decide what style of print you like, hard, or soft, or light open , or heavy and closed, you then are pretty much assured with simple calculations
at the front end you can easily produce a negative that can make the type of print you want.

Bob

Click to expand...

This is my problem: not being able to anchor my feelings on either the Brandt or Sturges negative.

No, I am not 'lost' or trying to be morbid here, but wanted, with this thread, instead to express my dismay with finding a continuing merit with BOTH approaches to negative exposure. There are claims to be made for both negative 'scores'. Neither approach is 'wrong', but neither is definitively 'correct'. I want, intuitively, an approach towards negative exposure that is always correct, but I am forced to keep vacillating.

Thus, the dilemma: do you underexpose and allow the highlight densities to dominate the 'importance' continuum (thus, letting the reality of that visual image to be presented in a technically 'false' manner), or do you embrace the whole image (considering each tonality to hold valid importance)? Doing the latter will 'capture all' but just might end up being false, in a subjective way. Think about that. There are magnificent examples of both. - David Lyga

I've always wondered about negatives that need extreme dodging/burning or going way up or down in contrast grades (like 1 or 4) to get a print that would have printed fairly "normally" (2-3 contrast, very little and subtle dodging/burning). In those cases, are you pushing the limits of what the paper was designed to do, or going past its "sweet spot"?

An analogy would be recovering skies in a bright digital file and getting very gritty looking skies without much ronal tange - but with digital, the detail just may not exist where it may be there (though not perfect) on a neg, so perhaps not a good example?

I alway seem to dislike the tonal range of prints where I really had to jump through hoops to get a useable print vs. a prints-like-a-breeze neg. Are there issues regarding the DR of paper that come into play?

And I have to agree with Bob Carnie - negs I've thought were almost unprintable with normal paper dev seem to be the magic ones with lith printing. Very thin negs often seem made for the wierdness of tonal range you can get with lith, and there's nothing like those final prints.

Old-N-Feeble said:

I seldom see you get upset, David. Whattup, dude?

Click to expand...

Just don't shoot me or nuttin'!

LAG said:

But I could not disagree more (with both). First because it is not a question of being a problem or a limitation, it's only a individual technical choice,

Click to expand...

LAG, the technical requirements of getting a specific look are easy because they are fully expressible in math.

When an individual chooses to avoid certain techniques, like burn and dodge or bleaching, they limit their options, they force compromises.

The most common problems I hear of from people who avoid burn and dodge are of blocked up shadows and blown highlights. Sure they can still "fix" the offending problem with say n-1 development or softer paper, but that forces a compromise with the rest of the photo and then they typically complain about flat, lackluster mid tones.

The laws of nature aren't optional.

LAG said:

second because "the negative" among many other things to explain long and hard (and with the permission of the positives, or others outputs registered that you left behind, in addition to the paper) is not an intermediate step.

Click to expand...

We normally use paper as the final display medium, right?