Negative density - second opinion wanted

[runswithsizzers]

I've often referred people to the internet site linked below when they have questions about assessing negatives. The visual aid referred to in it isn't perfect, but it does give someone at least an idea about how to approach the issue:
Assessing negatives
One of the things I particularly like about the linked site is the appearance of the negative described as the correctly exposed and developed negative. Many less experienced people seem to assume that negatives should appear more dense and contrasty then is actually best.

Ilford also have some good information on assessing negatives.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/common-processing-problems/

Thanks for those resources. I will study them, and they are bookmarked for future reference.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Honestly, when I started this post, I was expecting to be told my HP5+ negatives are too dense. But there seems to be more concern about my Arista Ultra 400 negatives being too thin.

Based on all the helpful feedback:
For the next roll of Arista Ultra 400, I will want to increase my development time - but by how much? That is, what is the minimum amount of added time that will produce a noticable increase in density - 10%? 20%?

Next time I shoot Ilford HP5+ I will set my meter to EI 320 or 400 rather than 250, and I will also either reduce the development time a little bit, and/or reduce my agitation some.

As for my inconsistent exposures - I am still thinking about that problem. After doing comparison tests with gray cards I really do not believe my meters are significantly inaccurate. It seems unlikely that the hand-held meters would be inconsistent, but I need to rule that out. For the time being, I am going to switch from using the Sekonic L-308s to my Gossen Luna-Lux under the assumption that it is unlikely that both meters have some kind of electromechanical malfunction that would make them give sporadic results. (I do know one of the Pentax internal meters gives random erroneous results, but most of my exposures have been based on the hand-held meter readings.)

I am also reasonably confident that the problem seen in these two rolls is not due to the light changing between metering and exposure.

The most likely cause of erratic exposures is probably my incident metering technique. Perhaps I am being too careless when aiming the incident dome at the camera / lightsource(?)

I would really like to be able to trust the built-in camera meters more, and use the incident meter less. I don't remember having much trouble back when I was shooting slides (1970-2010). But after shooting digital-only for 10 years, I seem to have lost the knack for manual metering.

 

[pentaxuser]

runswithsizzers, a meter can be accidentally "fooled" of course. If this happens rarely then unless you are in a position to check and re-check the exposure before taking the picture then some negatives may not be at the best exposure and that is something you may have to accept but if a lot of negatives have quite different looks in very similar light conditions then they may be something that can be corrected.

Key for me would be how the prints look. I can't always predict that I have got the shadow detail in the exposed negative OK until I print from the negative and sometimes the shadows do not have enough details but equally in some shots the shadow detail may matter very little or certainly not enough to spoil the print of the picture

Do you print your negs or scan them and alter the reversed neg in PS? If it's the latter than as I understand matters, altering the reversed neg as a print may be relatively simple or require less manipulative skill than in a darkroom

If it's an enlarger produced print then some dodging and/or burning can help but doing this skilfully may take practice

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Honestly, when I started this post, I was expecting to be told my HP5+ negatives are too dense. But there seems to be more concern about my Arista Ultra 400 negatives being too thin.

Based on all the helpful feedback:
For the next roll of Arista Ultra 400, I will want to increase my development time - but by how much? That is, what is the minimum amount of added time that will produce a noticable increase in density - 10%? 20%?

Next time I shoot Ilford HP5+ I will set my meter to EI 320 or 400 rather than 250, and I will also either reduce the development time a little bit, and/or reduce my agitation some.

As for my inconsistent exposures - I am still thinking about that problem. After doing comparison tests with gray cards I really do not believe my meters are significantly inaccurate. It seems unlikely that the hand-held meters would be inconsistent, but I need to rule that out. For the time being, I am going to switch from using the Sekonic L-308s to my Gossen Luna-Lux under the assumption that it is unlikely that both meters have some kind of electromechanical malfunction that would make them give sporadic results. (I do know one of the Pentax internal meters gives random erroneous results, but most of my exposures have been based on the hand-held meter readings.)

I am also reasonably confident that the problem seen in these two rolls is not due to the light changing between metering and exposure.

The most likely cause of erratic exposures is probably my incident metering technique. Perhaps I am being too careless when aiming the incident dome at the camera / lightsource(?)

I would really like to be able to trust the built-in camera meters more, and use the incident meter less. I don't remember having much trouble back when I was shooting slides (1970-2010). But after shooting digital-only for 10 years, I seem to have lost the knack for manual metering.

Generally when I have had thin development I have increased the development 10% for a slight improvement and 15% to 20% for a noticeable improvement. Another way to approach the correct time is to adjust the time at 68°F 20°C one minute longer and then adjust for the ambient temperature. That way I can develop [pun intended] a consistent development time for any temperature. I found that adding one minute at a time to the 68°F 20°C time, brings me very quickly to the proper time. Personally for my I have had to consistently add one minute to the 68°F 20°C time for replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor for both Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ times for over ten years now.

 

[runswithsizzers]

pentaxuser, the last time I had access to a darkroom was when I took a university photography class in 2019. The only way I've seen my recent work on paper is when I've had books printed from my digital files by Blurb. Those look good, but of course, that is a far different process from making prints in the darkroom.

The hybrid workflow does seem to be more tolerant of marginal negatives than darkroom printing. In spite of the problems discussed here about these two rolls of film, I was able to make images suitable for online viewing. Arista EDU Ultra 400 <here> and Ilford HP5+ <here> I did notice the files from the Arista Ultra 400 negatives were somewhat harder to post-process, particularly when trying to bring up the shadows. But I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to troubleshoot the Arista 400. After I finish the roll that is in my camera, I will not be shooting any more Arista 400.

I may try to take another photography class in the spring which would get me back into the darkroom again. My local university allows people who are 62 years and older to take one class per semester with no tuition fee. And I know the professor well enough to be allowed to follow my own path and not worry too much about sticking to her curriculum. It's a sweet, deal, really.

 

[pentaxuser]

I know diddly-squat about scanning but it may be that in terms of getting acceptable pictures for your files or for sharing with others electronically less than "best" may be good enough if you are a hybrid worker by force of circumstances rather than desire

I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have a darkroom now but I feel sure that had I not been able to convert a spare bedroom to a darkroom shortly after completing a darkroom nightschool at a college I doubt very much if I'd have persisted with film photography

It's a great shame that not everyone has the space and possibly the resources needed to build a darkroom

One class per semester for free however is not a bad compromise in my book

pentaxuser

 

[runswithsizzers]

It's a great shame that not everyone has the space and possibly the resources needed to build a darkroom

Well, I must admit, I do have the resources, and probably the space, to build a small darkroom in my basement. The space would need to be adjacent to my other hobby - woodworking/boatbuilding, with all that dust, so less than ideal. But truth is, I am rather ambivalent about prints.

I do enjoy making prints, and looking at prints made by others,. But I keep asking myself, "What am I going to do with a lot of prints?" Most likely, they will end up in a box under my bed, and the only person to ever see my prints will be whoever gets stuck with putting all my stuff in the rubbish when I die.

Still, I may decide to build that little darkroom one day. I am getting somewhat allergic to wood dust, so my boatbuilding days may be about over. I will need some kind of project to occupy my time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, I must admit, I do have the resources, and probably the space, to build a small darkroom in my basement. The space would need to be adjacent to my other hobby - woodworking/boatbuilding, with all that dust, so less than ideal. But truth is, I am rather ambivalent about prints.

I do enjoy making prints, and looking at prints made by others,. But I keep asking myself, "What am I going to do with a lot of prints?" Most likely, they will end up in a box under my bed, and the only person to ever see my prints will be whoever gets stuck with putting all my stuff in the rubbish when I die.

Still, I may decide to build that little darkroom one day. I am getting somewhat allergic to wood dust, so my boatbuilding days may be about over. I will need some kind of project to occupy my time.

After many decades I do have a darkroom and when I start pushing up flowers my children and grandchildren get to figure out what to do with the equipment and supplies. I am not going to worry about it.

 

[Arvee]

Hmmm, I get negs that look like yours when I use my old Vivitar Series 1 lens; about every fifth shot the aperture doesn't stop down and the frame gets exposed at max aperture. Are you sure your lens is stopping down as it should? Open the back and fire off a dozen shots or so and see if the lens stops down each and every frame.

 

[koraks]

But I keep asking myself, "What am I going to do with a lot of prints?"

Well, make them, if course
Speaking from a personal perspective, one of the things I like the most about photography is the printmaking process. Surely I don't actually need all those prints for anything. I don't sell them and most of them don't end up hanging on walls. So what? Do you build boats only because you need many boats, or also because you enjoy the process? Do you make photographs only because you need the images, or also because you like the process? It's very much the same with prints. At least for me, and I suspect for many others as well.

I'm saying all this because I would have regretted it, in hindsight, if I hadn't started making prints at some point. Photography just wasn't complete without that step; it somehow brings it full circle. Give it a try to see if it's for you; if it doesn't float your boat, that's alright; it'll save you from a lot of hassle for sure.

 

[albireo]

Well, make them, if course
Speaking from a personal perspective, one of the things I like the most about photography is the printmaking process. Surely I don't actually need all those prints for anything. I don't sell them and most of them don't end up hanging on walls. So what? Do you build boats only because you need many boats, or also because you enjoy the process? Do you make photographs only because you need the images, or also because you like the process?

That's so interesting! Sounds like perhaps you like printing more than actual photography, intended as the search for a composition, a pattern, interesting light, and interesting story - so basically the process that ends with a click of the shutter button.

I'm the opposite. I get a kick from being out there and coming up with something interesting in my frame. While I do enjoy engaging with the scientific aspect of optimising exposure and development, I like to spend as little as possible doing post processing to 'enhance/beautify' any sort of meaning other than what was in the negative. Whether that postprocessing involves countless hours tinkering in a darkroom or in front of a computer, it doesn't matter. I would 1.000.000 times rather spend my free time being out there searching for something than locked at home working on the logistics of the delivery of the message that I will have captured before.

And I should add that, purely at a personal level, it makes me so sad to think many people have taken great photographs and these are lying somewhere, in some closet, and will never be seen by anyone because they were printed. So, AFAIK, long live scanning, digitalisation, mail order, projection or any other sort of device which makes me able to enjoy some great photos from around the world!

 

[koraks]

Sounds like perhaps you like printing more than actual photography

That's correct, I'm a printer who happens to like photography. Initially I thought the opposite, and I still enjoy the actual shooting part as well, but I learned that I probably like printing even more.

But if given the choice: never print anymore, or only print other people's work, then neither would appeal to me. So I'm really a printer who photographs. I only learned this because I got my hands wet and started printing!

 

[btaylor]

Re: exposure, why not compare your meter readings against "Sunny-16" and bracket a couple of exposures?

I think this is excellent advice. I find it useful to pull out one of those old exposure charts (the ones that have drawings of full sun, partly cloudy and overcast) to double check a reading. I need the chart because I can only remember Sunny 16!
Speaking to materials, I went down a rabbit hole with Arista 200. It was difficult and took a LOT of experimentation for me to get good printable negatives- my exposure and development times were far different from “recommended.” Conversely I did a series of tests for a class like the example negatives/prints that Matt linked to with TMax 100 and TMax RS developer. The results showed the best print was from the negative rated at ISO 100 (box speed) and developed at the time/temperature recommended by Kodak! Imagine that.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Practical sensitivity of Fomapan 400 varies from 125 ISO to 400 ISO depending on the batch (emulsion number). I do not use this film without prior testing
Jerzy Łapiński

[...] I went down a rabbit hole with Arista 200. It was difficult and took a LOT of experimentation for me to get good printable negatives- my exposure and development times were far different from “recommended.” Conversely I did a series of tests for a class like the example negatives/prints that Matt linked to with TMax 100 and TMax RS developer. The results showed the best print was from the negative rated at ISO 100 (box speed) and developed at the time/temperature recommended by Kodak! Imagine that.

Thanks for the replies. Advice like this is the reason I have decided to eliminate Arista/Foma from my list of potential "favorite" films. I liked the one roll of Foma 200 I tried. But not well enough to jump through a lot of hoops to use it.

I did not like this roll of Arista Ultra 400, which brings up the question: Is it fair to decide if I like a film by casually shooting one or two rolls at the manufacturer's recommended ISO, and then processing it according to the manufacturer's recommended time? Apparently that is a reasonable expectation for Kodak films - but apparently not for Foma films? And what about Ilford, Rollei, Adox, etc?

 

[gone]

I've never used an incident meter in my life, and never had a reason to do so I suppose. An in-camera, TTL spot meter is the way to go, when you have one you'll see that the exposure changes wildly when you move the point of focus around. A center weighted meter can't see the differences, it's all about averaging things out towards the center.

You can get accurate exposures w/ center weighted TTL metering, but it takes a few rolls of film and copious notes to figure out just exactly how it should be understood. That's why I much prefer a camera w/ in-camera, TTL spot, and it needs AE-Lock as well. It's virtually impossible to get bad exposures if you have the value locked where you put it in the viewfinder.

 

[cliveh]

I've never used an incident meter in my life, and never had a reason to do so I suppose. An in-camera, TTL spot meter is the way to go, when you have one you'll see that the exposure changes wildly when you move the point of focus around. A center weighted meter can't see the differences, it's all about averaging things out towards the center.

You can get accurate exposures w/ center weighted TTL metering, but it takes a few rolls of film and copious notes to figure out just exactly how it should be understood. That's why I much prefer a camera w/ in-camera, TTL spot, and it needs AE-Lock as well. It's virtually impossible to get bad exposures if you have the value locked where you put it in the viewfinder.

If you are shooting slide film an incident meter is a must, as you are then often more concerned about highlight values.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

To me, both are exposed well. The Ultra could do with a bit more time in the developer. But.. it really all depends what you want to do with the negatives. If you are just scanning them, then I would think that the Ultra negs will be fine as is. Wet printing? Nope. I would definitely extend the time for the Ultra.

 

[MattKing]

Sounds like perhaps you like printing more than actual photography

To me, printing is an integral part of actual photography - in fact the part that makes it "actual".
Just as important as the "capture" part of the process.
Photography without presentation is --- almost nothing.
And my preferred modes of presentation are:
1) prints - preferably made in a darkroom; and
2) projection from a transparency.
I do present my photographs digitally too. And I enjoy the ease of distribution. But it isn't nearly as satisfying.

 

[albireo]

To me, printing is an integral part of actual photography - in fact the part that makes it "actual".
Just as important as the "capture" part of the process.

I know that's your view on it, Matt. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[MattKing]

I know that's your view on it, Matt. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think it is an either/or question.
A technically great print of a boring subject is, indeed, a boring print.
But a technically and artistically great print of an meaningful subject has a value of its own - the resulting thing is very special, and worth striving for. And it certainly is "actual" photography.
Garry Winogrand's “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” means more to me when the result is a print.

 

[koraks]

Garry Winogrand's “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” means more to me when the result is a print.

Yeah, I can see that. I'd even formulate it one step beyond it - by photographing and printing something new is created. If it's only photographed, for me it's still waiting to be created. It could be, but it isn't yet. Once a print is made, it becomes a part of reality just like the part of reality that was captured. But a different part of reality. It's really a new entity. As long as it's still a negative or a digital file, it doesn't feel particularly real yet to me. Hence, printing is a necessity. I'd really put it that strongly, at least for myself.

 

[runswithsizzers]

To me, both are exposed well. The Ultra could do with a bit more time in the developer. But.. it really all depends what you want to do with the negatives. If you are just scanning them, then I would think that the Ultra negs will be fine as is. Wet printing? Nope. I would definitely extend the time for the Ultra.

Thanks for responding. If you were going to develop another roll of Astia Ultra 400 in the same developer, do you think increasing the time by 10-15% would be enough? Or would you add more than that?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks for responding. If you were going to develop another roll of Astia Ultra 400 in the same developer, do you think increasing the time by 10-15% would be enough? Or would you add more than that?

I think to bring it closer to the HP5 densities, 15% would be a good place to start... and I'm only guessing as I've never used Astia Ultra 400 before. Develop a roll with 15% more time given, and make a judgement call. Cheers!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't think it is an either/or question.
A technically great print of a boring subject is, indeed, a boring print.
But a technically and artistically great print of an meaningful subject has a value of its own - the resulting thing is very special, and worth striving for. And it certainly is "actual" photography.
Garry Winogrand's “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” means more to me when the result is a print.

My prints are perfectly and technically correct and beautiful as well as artistic to the highest order as one would expect from me. I hold back from publishing them to fear of shaming some of those here.

 

[pentaxuser]

My prints are perfectly and technically correct and beautiful as well as artistic to the highest order as one would expect from me. I hold back from publishing them to fear of shaming some of those here.

Sirius, there are few who would openly express that noble community spirit. A personal sacrifice for the greater good

pentaxuser