Neg Exposure for Salt Prints

[wobsy]

AA's Zone System may not be everyones favourite but in this instance it is a useful method of explanation.

I have started doing salt prints using FP4+ and in order to get the right type of extended contrast I have developed the film to get what would normally be a Z.IX to print on the paper. To get that type of contrast has - of course - meant that all the other zones have also expanded in various amounts including Z.V. The problem I have found is that when I then take a meter reading of a scene and process it in my 'new' process with ID11 the resulting print is well overexposed.

How do you go about setting the right 'in camera' exposure to take the photograph and end up with a properly exposed final print?

I saw in an earlier thread for Kallitypes that exposure should be based on the shadow. If so which zone would that be - 3?

I also keep reading that Pyro is the best dev for these type of negs but not having a darkroom and only being able to use domestic rooms, bathroom and kitchen, ID11 seems the best I can do.

 

[Vaughn]

No matter how much development one gives film, the lower values will not significant increase in density -- so expose the film like you would for any process, that is, expose to place the shadows you want info/detail in at Zone 3 (or perhaps a little less, but not by much). The developer can not develop silver that has not been exposed. So you have to get that shadow info recorded onto the film.

Other than that, I am a bit confused about the actual question you asked. I would think the emphisis should be placed on film development, not so heavily on film exposure as your question seems to indicate. Then once you get a negative with the contrast range that works best for Salt Prints, then you adjust your print exposure based on the over-all density of the negative, paper used, light source, and actual chemical mix on the paper.

 

[2F/2F]

A zone is a print tone; a step on a grey scale. Negative densities can be manipulated to print to various zones. So, in practice, it is not too helpful to discuss zones until you know what a normal negative and a normal print are for your type of printing process. You do not know what negative densities correspond to certain print tones ("zones") for your particular process until you first determine what a normal print looks like. Always start at the print, and work backwards. that is the entire premise of the Zone System: What do I need to do to to get the print I want. Well, you don't know that until you know the characteristics of your printing process. Differences between tones are much more important than absolute densities. You want to aim for tonal differentiation that fits the printing process, not necessarily for absolute densities.

 

[Loris Medici]

Vaughn is right; the most basic rule of B&W photography is "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights"... You need extending the development, not increasing the exposure! (Actually, to my knowing, when developing for processes that need high DR negatives, film speed / E.I. usually increases - but not much as Vaughn said before!)

 

[2F/2F]

I think what the OP described is the "pulling up" of his midtones along with the high tones when he over develops, not that he was giving addition exposure to achieve the increased density. Yes, this does happen, and if one is a stickler, one may want to underexpose accordingly.

However, my point was that as long as you get the tonal relationships you want - that work with the printing process - a little bit of higher-than-normal density in the mids is OK.

If your mids end up too bright for your liking in order to get the lows to print where you want them, then the negative has more contrast than you want. The print exposure should be pretty close to a standard time that you know works for the low tones, and the development of the neg should determine where the mids, but especially the highs, end up on the print.

 

[wobsy]

Thank you for your replies.
2F/2F is correct in that to try and get the correct 'darkest to lightest' tones in the final print, I exposed a Z.1 on one half of 5x4 and Z. IX on the other. I then developed it enough to just have the z. IX showing on the white paper and the Z. I JUST visible. This was done by development, not exposure.
The answer seems to be to place my shadow on Z. 3 - ish and go from there.
I think the thing I had in mind was if I was wanting a particular object to be Z.V for example I would normally make that the preferred exposure and then develop for the other zones, but in the salt process that Z. V might end up as a Z. VII! Hence my concern.
However, making all exposures based on the best shadow area sounds good. I'll give it a go.
Thanks all again.

 

[Vaughn]

I think the thing I had in mind was if I was wanting a particular object to be Z.V for example I would normally make that the preferred exposure and then develop for the other zones, but in the salt process that Z. V might end up as a Z. VII! Hence my concern.

I guess I have never been concerned about that -- if I want an area of a neg to print as Zone V, I adjust the print exposure until it is. Then if the contrast is not right, adjust that in the printing/developing (depending on the contrast controls possible with that particular process) -- or if that is not possible, retake the neg and adjust the development to get the right contrast.

But generally, I expose the print to get the highlights the way I want them, then adjust the contrast to get the shadow detail I want -- and let the tones inbetween fall where they will. And I have found that FP4+ is a nice film for getting nice midtones

Good luck in your explorations!

Vaughn

 

[Peter Schrager]

I do salt;platinum and azo printing all using the same negative...usually make sure the shadows are covered but place my meter on the highs...I use pyrocat 2:2:100 but the negatives can be made with any developer...just try for about 30-40% more development...really quite simple...leave the zones to someone else
Best, Peter

 

[smieglitz]

You can also gain a bit of negative highlight density and contrast by selenium-toning the processed negative.

 

[Vaughn]

You can also gain a bit of negative highlight density and contrast by selenium-toning the processed negative.

I have mentioned it before, but I have also given a well exposed negative a light bleaching to deepen the shadow values (Zones I and II -- and a touch of III), then after a fix and a good wash, selenium tone the negative -- increases contrast by going in both directions. I never plan on doing this to a neg, but it has made a few negs very printable for carbon printing -- which works well for me with negs of higher contrast normally needed for platinum (w/ no contrast agent), salt, etc.

 

[smieglitz]

Vaughn,

Have you ever reversed the sequence? At first thought, perhaps the selenium first would protect the highlights since they have been affected most and that the thin shadows might still be susceptible to the bleach providing an even greater kick to the contrast. Or not. Might be worth testing.

What formula/dilution do you use for the bleach and toner? I'm use KRST between 1:3 & 1:6 for the intensification.

 

[Jim Noel]

Salt prints have the longest scale of any printing process. A correct negative must therefore have a long scale. Reduce the exposure by about 1/3-1/2 stop and double the development time should put you in the ballpark, and then you can fine tune.
I am assuming you are using a film which will expand well such as FP4+. Faster films don't expand well.

 

[wobsy]

Thank you all for your help and advice, I now have a good bit of ammunition to pursue the print.

One last question; I am following Wynn White's favourite recipe and having now got 3 x solutions
a) Sodium chloride and potassium citrate b) silver nitrate c) citric acid
will they all keep well when in separate bottles
many thanks

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn,

Have you ever reversed the sequence? At first thought, perhaps the selenium first would protect the highlights since they have been affected most and that the thin shadows might still be susceptible to the bleach providing an even greater kick to the contrast. Or not. Might be worth testing.

What formula/dilution do you use for the bleach and toner? I'm use KRST between 1:3 & 1:6 for the intensification.

I have read that it is not good to reverse the process -- but who knows...wives' tales and all that LOL! But I would think the selenium would have a greater effect in the thin areas of the negative -- not visually, but since there is less silver, all of the silver there would be effected by the selenium, where as the highlights and their massive amount of silver, some silver may not be as effected by the selenium. I would worry about uneven bleaching.

I use the normal dilution of the bleach from the Kodak Sepia Toner, then fix. I tone in KRST at 1: to completion.

AA selenium toned the bottom half of the Moonrise neg -- and I have done the same on one neg where the upper half of a 4x10 hort neg needed the boost -- worked like a charm! (no bleaching needed on that neg).

Vaughn

PS -- Jim, I'll match and better the scale of salt prints with my carbon prints any day! But perhaps salt prints can handle 13+ stops of light is a scene (neg developed normally) and still pull out all those values in the print. I know from experience that carbon does it wonderfully. I have only made one salt print -- from a neg that gave me a full range of values, yet the neg lacks the contrast needed for carbon.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I also keep reading that Pyro is the best dev for these type of negs but not having a darkroom and only being able to use domestic rooms, bathroom and kitchen, ID11 seems the best I can do.

I don't know where you get the idea that not having a dedicated darkroom you can't use Pyro - you most certainly can use it, just be careful, confine the liquid to the sink and do judicious cleanup afterward. In fact, the silver nitrate you use to make your salt prints is far more dangerous than the pyro. It isn't harder to clean up after than a metol-based developer, and it is certainly used in much weaker dilutions than metol-based developers, which can give lots of people allergic topical reactions. If you are concerned, confine the use of Pyro to the bathroom sink, where people are not eating food that has come in contact with surfaces that may have been exposed to your developer.

 

[wobsy]

That is interesting and useful information, thanks. I shall perhaps give further conssideration to using it.

 

[removed account4]

i wouldn't use pyro in anyplace except where i am specifically doing
photographic work, a darkroom sink ...
whether it has been linked to parkinson's disease or anything else.

i haven't ever used pyro ... i have heard that coffee based developers
develop film in a similar way. if you are worried about the toxic nature
of pyro, it might be worth a try.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you are thinking of Edward Weston, he not only used pyro developers but he used amidol for his paper developer and had the classic black fingernails from keeping his hands in the soup all the time. It would be hard to say which of the two, if either, had a hand in his Parkinson's. Amidol is quite possibly nastier from a health perspective - it is a benzene ring compound. I'd be more likely to blame his health issues on Amidol than on pyro. This is not to say pyro is health food, safe to consume in volume - it should be treated with care and respect (wear gloves, don't eat after handling it without washing your hands, etc). But if we let fear of the potential prevent us from trying things, we'd still be living in caves and making fire with flint.

 

[Anon Ymous]

... Amidol is quite possibly nastier from a health perspective - it is a benzene ring compound...

Amidol might be the nastiest developing agent, I really don't know, but I do know that hydroquinone, pyrogallol, pyrocatechol, metol, glycin and even the low toxicity phenidone, all of them have benzene rings in their structure. It doesn't really say much. Potassium ferricyanide has 6 cyanide (CN-) groups in each molecule, but it's not as toxic as it sounds. In any case, we all need to use common sense and avoid exposure to chemicals, especially the nastier of them.

 

[Larry Bullis]

If you are thinking of Edward Weston, he not only used pyro developers but he used amidol for his paper developer and had the classic black fingernails from keeping his hands in the soup all the time. It would be hard to say which of the two, if either, had a hand in his Parkinson's. Amidol is quite possibly nastier from a health perspective - it is a benzene ring compound. I'd be more likely to blame his health issues on Amidol than on pyro. This is not to say pyro is health food, safe to consume in volume - it should be treated with care and respect (wear gloves, don't eat after handling it without washing your hands, etc). But if we let fear of the potential prevent us from trying things, we'd still be living in caves and making fire with flint.

Although I had a photographer friend who died from complications of early onset Parkinson's (he used only D23 for film, and never, to my knowledge used either pyro or amidol) I'm a skeptic that there is a connection between Parkinson's disease and photography. I think we need to remember that people who've never worked in photography get Parkinson's disease also. Did Janet Reno get it because she practiced Law?

Unless there have been studies that I've not heard of that confirm a link, it seems to me that there is little justification for fearing pyro on the basis of its association with EW.