My love/hate relationship with negative contrast and density

[David Lyga]

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?

With films that are inherently contrasty, like Pan F, the choice becomes even more compelling. Ilford states that an EI of 50 offers the BEST image quality. WHY? I posit: Because there is (theoretically) greater resolution than with an EI of 25? Because the highlights are better separated because they are not at the very top (i.e., shoulder) of the characteristic curve? But, in practice, are they really better separated? Perhaps so, with clouds maybe being able to be seen better at the higher rating.

I would be very interested to know whether others are fully set with their film speeds/development times or, at times, have had, and still have, lingering doubts. Perhaps this is so because we cannot have it all, due to the limited reflectance value of paper. - David Lyga

 

[Rick A]

David, that's a decision I try to make prior to snapping the shutter, but then I mostly shoot large format these days and am able to control all of the functions of exposure/development.

 

[David Lyga]

That is cheating, Rick. The luxury of individually conforming one's process to individual scenes does not comply with a viable resolution of this dilemma! When you shoot roll film, you must compromise.

By the way, I adore your hairdo. -David Lyga

 

[greg zinselmeier]

David, you try loading your own film, with short runs . . . . say 12 exposures. in terms of trade offs, this always enough film to be granted for a few compositions bracketed. as well as, a few compositional choices as well. you can bring along a multi-pack of 3 cassettes= 1 roll of 36. you can develop at different times for each roll. 1 roll at 36 (35mm) = 8,10,12 0r 16 exp( 120)= 4 (4x5) = 1 8x10. Many people ( photographers) make additional exposures for their work. and also they periodically reshoot if applicable. there is no perfect strategy. no matter what attempt you try, murphy's law will dictate you choose poorly!!!

if for example your the guy that does "street stuff" then you are S>O>L. if you expose for empty park benches at night, then I guess your in luck! you can always reshoot

 

[Rick A]

I guess the trick then, is to understand "normal" development, and test to see what exposing for high contrast and low contrast will allow, then dialing it in. If you know what to expect from the developer, then knowing what to expect from different exposures that fall inside those parameters, and acting accordingly, will bring you closer to satisfaction. Selecting the appropriate contrast in the dark room will finish the job. the old adage of shooting for one grade of paper still applies, but printing on modern multi grade papers is a blessing.

 

[Vaughn]

Another cheater -- not only that, I use a process that can grab all that detail from deep shadows to almost-blocked highlights. If I can see some detail in the highlights using a bright flashlight behind the negative, I can get it in the carbon print. Sorry...

 

[Moopheus]

That is cheating, Rick. The luxury of individually conforming one's process to individual scenes does not comply with a viable resolution of this dilemma! When you shoot roll film, you must compromise.

Not necessarily--use a system camera with multiple backs, assign one as n+ and another as n-. But that is for fitting the scene to the negative, which as michael_r rightly points out, is not the same problem as fitting the negative to the print.

 

[Vaughn]

I was told long ago that if one has an incredible image on the roll of film that needed different development than one would usually give a roll of film, then make a few exposures of it (if possible), then rewind the film (or advance it to the end in the case of 120 film). Film is cheap !

Worrying about wasting even 30 shots on a roll of 36, when you have captured an image-of-a-lifetime, or just an image you can be proud of, is downright silly.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I agree 100% blow the roll and load another but get the shot.

 

[markbarendt]

The work is at the printing stage.

Yep.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I have to disagree with the opening premise. Speaking as someone who regularly works under very long subject luminance range conditions, I can say that only under the most extreme of these circumstances is it necessary to compromise on one end of the scale for the sake of the other. Said another way, under all but the most extreme conditions, you can have both full shadow separations and full highlight separations in the negative. Most current films offer us long straight line exposure scales. Unless you do something in processing which shortens the scale, capturing full detail in the negative at both extreme ends of the subject luminance range is very rarely the problem. The work is at the printing stage.

+1
This is my experience as well. I have even inadvertently overexposed by 2-3 stops and still had great highlight separation and detail. I shoot TXP a lot, a film with a long, sloping toe, and routinely give it a stop more exposure when I want to move the shadows up the curve a bit for more separation. Never had to worry about the highlights losing separation.

Digression: I really don't like the ambiguity of "blocked highlights." Some use the term simply to refer to difficult-to-print highlights resulting from overdevelopment or a high-contrast scene. More precisely, it refers to highlights losing separation as the leave the straight line of the curve at the film's shoulder. With modern films, this latter occurs fairly high on the exposure scale; like Zone XII or higher and is much less of an issue than it was years ago.

Best,

Doremus

 

[silveror0]

By the way, I adore your hairdo.

David, I suspect what you're really saying is that you adore ANY hairdo? Just kidding! I'm in nearly the same boat as you.

 

[Bill Burk]

Haaa Rick A has gone Pastafarian on us! I worry a bit about joining organizations that make you wear funny hats. But then, wait... I joined the Boy Scouts of America and we have those red berets as our troop uniform...

I agree with Doremus Scudder, there is no such thing as the shoulder on the film anymore. So we don't experience traditional highlight blocking. I picked up some superproportional reducer because I want to experience this someday, because I really am curious what all the big deal was. And I think I'm missing out on something.

I prefer a negative where important shadows have reasonable density above base + fog, and I will be OK if my darkest shadow reads 0.4 even though 0.1 is the ideal.

I prefer the important highlights to be about 1.05 above the shadow, so that negative might have a highlight that I want to hold reading about 1.45. I have a couple key example negatives - one too thin and one too contrasty... and I just try to keep all my negatives in that range.

I tend to shoot in "projects" so most of my rolls can be developed to a certain contrast. Like one recent roll is from the flag ceremony, late dusk which can take some extra time in the developer.

 

[David Lyga]

David, I suspect what you're really saying is that you adore ANY hairdo? Just kidding! I'm in nearly the same boat as you.

I will have you know (in your naivety) that I have a FULL head of hair. I keep it cropped because that hair has no natural curve and looks terrible when let to grow. So there!

Another cheater -- not only that, I use a process that can grab all that detail from deep shadows to almost-blocked highlights. If I can see some detail in the highlights using a bright flashlight behind the negative, I can get it in the carbon print. Sorry...

You CAN capture all detail from shadows to highlights, but if you look at an UNDER exposed negative you will find the highlight separation to be superior to what that fully exposed negative will offer with its highlights.

I know that today's films are spectacular with regard to lengthening that characteristic curve. Bravo! But there still are situations where either shadows or highlights must be emphasized (and not considered merely a complacent component of the entire image). That was the crux of my query. Your responses were all coherent and sane, but that fine point, that final quest for perfection, still does exist.

MOST contrast situations are handled admirably well by today's films. However, we will all agree that there truly are situations where the EYE can see some detail where the film, though possibly able to actually capture it, cannot portray such in a print with the same differential that the eye saw. This is one of the major reasons why slides (transparencies) used to be so popular. By having the light shine THROUGH the film, projected onto a screen, as opposed to a negative offering its merit with a REFLECTANCE print, more tonal dimensions manifested.

Bill Burke, your choice for gamma (contrast index) exceeds what the literature has always taught us to adopt: about .6 - .8 and you choose a bit over 1, meshing that image's contrast with the actual scene's contrast. I happen to agree with you.

But, is the nonexistence of the 'shoulder' (and 'toe') with today's films really better? When you look at a bright, contrasty scene outdoors, don't you REALLY see shadows that are compressed and highlights that are ALSO compressed. I am speaking in RELATIVE, not absolute, terms here: seen ONLY in conjunction with all those other tones. However, if you isolate the shadows and have no other tonalities competing within your vision, you WANT the shadows then to hold a full amount of tonal separation. Likewise, with the isolated highlights. BUT ... when COMBINED with all the other tones, one tends to want both extremes somewhat subdued. Thus, maybe there really is a case for both 'toe' and 'shoulder'. That is just a thought.

This quest is intended to explore your individual reactions toward capturing what you want in the print. And that just might not strictly conform with the actual scene.- David Lyga

 

[KidA]

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?

With you having 50 plus years on my photographic career, I feel somewhat stupid saying this as I'm sure you've already considered it: what about Ansel Adams' advice to pull all roll films N-1? I know you're searching for 'perfection' but is there something wrong with pulling contrast in film development and adding contrast in printing? Does it change the outcome much in the print?

 

[David Lyga]

michael r, I kept amending what I had originally said (driving the moderators nuts) but I think that I also mentioned the superiority (in some regards) with viewing transparencies. Thank you for also confirming this. - David Lyga

 

[removed account4]

right on vaughn !!

couldn't agree with what you have said more ...

 

[David Lyga]

With you having 50 plus years on my photographic career, I feel somewhat stupid saying this as I'm sure you've already considered it: what about Ansel Adams' advice to pull all roll films N-1? I know you're searching for 'perfection' but is there something wrong with pulling contrast in film development and adding contrast in printing? Does it change the outcome much in the print?

Ansel Adams is simply saying that, in order to capture everything on that film, one is forced to take useful advantage of the fact that printing papers are made to be able to adapt any contrast range into a usable print. This is common sense and is a workaround for not being able to individually tailor one's negative image individually. By requiring less negative development, he covers all bases and prevents undue build-up of highlight densities. - David Lyga

 

[Rick A]

That is cheating, Rick. The luxury of individually conforming one's process to individual scenes does not comply with a viable resolution of this dilemma! When you shoot roll film, you must compromise.

By the way, I adore your hairdo. -David Lyga

Thank you David, I went to great lengths to get it that way.

 

[David Lyga]

I will tell you, Rick, without the slightest equivocation, that you could be a national drag sensation! - David Lyga

 

[silveror0]

I will have you know (in your naivety) that I have a FULL head of hair. I keep it cropped because that hair has no natural curve and looks terrible when let to grow. So there! ...

Got a kick out of your sense of humor, David. Was only going by what I could see in your avatar; they're pretty tiny. And, yes, I AM naive sometimes. Have a great day.

 

[Vaughn]

right on vaughn !! couldn't agree with what you have said more ...

What did I say?!!

But anyway, I do not know if David is correct or not concerning exposure and highlights for silver gelatin printing . I expose and develop my negatives for the processes I use. Carbon printing can come dang close to faithfully reproducing in a straight print (no dodging, burning or fancy filter work) whatever range of values one has on the negative. Occasionally I do go over-board with my developing and create a range of values on a negative that prints ugly -- which I define as too much contrast compared to the actual scene and does not represent the quality of light I which to express. This might be in line with David's last couple of paragraphs in post #15.

Since my carbon prints have a raised relief, I can have areas of deep black shadows that have the same reflective quality (Zone 0?), yet have 'detail' within it in the form of the raised relief. Kinda fun, really.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is a printing issue since the latitude of film is so great. If one is not sure of the exposure, then bracket the exposures, and then make the decision in the darkroom. Spare time would be much better spent extending the latitude of paper.

 

[markbarendt]

With you having 50 plus years on my photographic career, I feel somewhat stupid saying this as I'm sure you've already considered it: what about Ansel Adams' advice to pull all roll films N-1? I know you're searching for 'perfection' but is there something wrong with pulling contrast in film development and adding contrast in printing? Does it change the outcome much in the print?

Ansel Adams is simply saying that, in order to capture everything on that film, one is forced to take useful advantage of the fact that printing papers are made to be able to adapt any contrast range into a usable print. This is common sense and is a workaround for not being able to individually tailor one's negative image individually. By requiring less negative development, he covers all bases and prevents undue build-up of highlight densities. - David Lyga

KidA David's trying to say the right thing and the words are getting in the way, just like they got in the way of what Adams was trying to say.

First, even in Adams time it wasn't normally about negatives not having some enough room for extra highlight detail, instead the real limit has always been the paper.

N-1 is a "printing control", it is only meaningful when used with a very specific output, say grade 2 paper, which was Adams target. Grade 2 paper will "print" from a very specific range of negative density.

N-1 film development lowers the difference in density between the shadows and the highlights on the film, a larger range of detail from the scene will print; more highlights or shadows or both depending on the choices of the person printing.

If you use N development and grade 2 paper an average scene prints normally.
If you use N-1 development and grade 3 paper an average scene prints normally.
If you use N+1 development and grade 1 paper an average scene prints normally.
All 3 of those scenarios can theoretically result in the same exact print and it doesn't miss by much in real life tests.

Varying camera exposure one way or the other is similarly "fixed" by simply adjusting print exposure: one stop over or under with negative isn't normally a problem, simply a printing adjustment.

Transparencies are a different animal.

 

[jonasfj]

Hello,

When I started out with developing black and white negative film and printing I was very confused when I read about different kind of films on the internet. There were always some people claiming that a particular film was contrasty, while some others claimed the opposite.

The idea of proper exposure/development of a negative is not to achieve a particular contrast, it is rather to maximize the information in the shadows, highlights and in between. Decisions about contrast are made during printing.

Nowadays, I have realized that if you calibrate your process, i.e. which ISO you rate your film to and the optimum development time for your particular conditions, the differences between films are smaller than you might expect from reading forums.

I have calibrated my process properly for only two 120 films, i.e. FP4+ and TMAX 400. According to my results I rate FP4+ to around ISO 80 and TMAX 400 to 320 or a little lower and for normal conditions it appear like I can follow box recommendations for development times.

I use this method: http://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html

Obviously one roll of film can contain a variety of subjects and lightening conditions, but if I shoot a frame that I think will be of significance for me, I may adjust ISO and make a note to change the development time if the lightening conditions are contrasty of flat. To make life simple, I do not meter the range exactly, I only note contrasty (>8 stops), normal (about 8 stops range) or flat (<8 stops). In case of a lot of subject contrast, I will reduce ISO by 1/3 of a stop and development time by 25%.

Cheers,

Jonas