Negative Expansion and Contraction with Multigrade Paper

[Dan Rainer]

Apologies if this is a remedial or obvious Zone System question.

Hypothetical situation: I'm photographing a low-contrast scene with tonality comprising zones III through VII.

I photograph the scene twice. The first time with my film at a proper EI and developed for the my N dev time—yielding a flat negative; the second time with the same EI, but with the film developed for an N+2 time—yielding a full range negative.

I print both negatives on MG paper, filtered for grade 2, at my maximum black time. The N negative has grey, unappealing highlights, while the N+2 negative yields a much better print, with tonalities touching zone IX.

Let's say I set the N+2 print aside, and work the flat print with my MG filters and f-stop timing to match the tonality of the two prints as closely as possible. Would the two prints look identical in the end?

In other words, is negative expansion and contraction (N+ and N- development) necessary when using MG paper? Does it yield a qualitive difference as opposed to leaving the negative flat and making contrast decisions with the enlarger?

 

[koraks]

Would the two prints look identical in the end?

Not quite, because there are subtle (or sometimes even quite pronounced) differences in the paper response curves for the different contrast grades.

 

[MARTIE]

No. In my experience, inherent film contrast, so film choice, and contrast created at the picture taking stage and film processing stage cannot be substituted or remedied at the printing phase.

Do your utmost to get the ideal negative because what's not on the negative can't be revealed under the enlarger. Especially things such as highlight and shadow detail and micro-contrast.
And you'll save yourself a lot of heartache!

See MG paper more as a way to compensate for a 'less than ideal' negative. I aim for grade 2 - 2.5 and historically, anything much higher or lower for me, tends to be a bit of a fruitless exercise in recovery from poor practice.
MG paper or graded paper for that matter, cannot and was never designed or intended to replace good practice, I'm afraid. But I think deep down you already no this and I hope this helps to affirm your suspicions.

 

[Alan9940]

Not that this really applies nowadays since the proliferation of MG paper, but back in the day of graded papers my photo mentor recommended producing an N + 1 1/2 negative to provide something a little different vs simply changing paper grades. Personally, that level of contrast expansion was about all I ever needed; I never do minus development. Give it a try and see how it fits (or not) with your printing techniques and style.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

You can do a reasonable job of image compensation using MG papers with some caveats:

• For MGIV paper stick to grades 2.5 to 5.0 - the lower contrast grades have roller coaster HD curves. Grade 00 can produce prints with clouds of grey with little detail when the print's tone hits one of the paper's flat spots. Grades 3 and above work best.
• MGV paper has far better controlled HD curves, and if you are printing on this paper then N+/-1 isn't really needed - the paper can handle it for you.

As has been pointed out though, the results may differ between switching paper grade and changing film exposure and development. Whether the differences are noticeable or contribute or detract from the image will be on a case by case basis and only the photographer can make that judgement.

Ref.: MGIV HD curve; MGV HD curve - from the Darkroom Automation Support Files

 

[Maris]

I invested years doing Zone System negative expansions and contractions to fit negatives to graded papers. This was in the days when papers came in quaint grades like soft, special, normal, hard, and extra hard. Some papers, Ilford for example, came in numbered grades from 0 to 5 and I'd have to buy ($$$) a box of 100 of each just to cover all possibilities. Some boxes would get used up quickly, some would die of age-fog.

No more!

Nowadays I use a modern multigrade paper like (for example) Ilford Classic Multigrade and the negatives that the paper gets to see are fully exposed and fully developed; basically as normal as I can make them.
In Zone System language I say going up a paper grade is like a N+1 expansion, down a grade is like a N-1 contraction.

But how close are the results from paper grade changes compared to the results from changing the negatives? Answer: Less close for N +/- 2 changes, very close indeed for N+1 and N-1 equivalent changes. Yes, by squinting hard at the prints tiny differences can always be picked out but my photography is not balanced on such a knife edge between success and failure. And you already know that print viewers never get to see the comparisons so they don't care.

Even better than overall N+/- negative changes is the ability of well used paper grade selections to render, say, shadows as N+1 and highlights as N-1 all in the same print; more choices, more versatility.
I won't go back to the limitations of the traditional Zone System.

 

[grain elevator]

I haven't done the comparisons to test this. But I'd hypothesise that the image printed at a higher grade will have slightly smaller, but more contrasty grain, because less development means smaller grain per conventional wisdom hereabouts and because I believe the grain on the negative has a fixed contrast relatively independent of development duration.
Has anyone done the comparisons to refute or confirm this?

 

[Milpool]

I haven't done the comparisons to test this. But I'd hypothesise that the image printed at a higher grade will have slightly smaller, but more contrasty grain, because less development means smaller grain per conventional wisdom hereabouts and because I believe the grain on the negative has a fixed contrast relatively independent of development duration.
Has anyone done the comparisons to refute or confirm this?

All other things being equal, higher printing contrast will add to the impression of graininess, so to an extent this will tend to have an offsetting effect on the reduced granularity of a thinner / lower contrast negative. Of course a number of other things are involved when it comes to the overall impression of graininess of a print.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Just pointing out and laughing.... you could only have this conversation on this site. I don't know of any other site that has conversations like this, with more than one person knowing what the guy was talking about.
It is a good question though.

Where would split grade printing fit into the mix?

 

[koraks]

Where would split grade printing fit into the mix?

Now you done it! How about pre-soak? Agitation...?

 

[BHuij]

Now you done it! How about pre-soak? Agitation...?

Nah, none of that matters as long as OP uses a Leica or Hasselblad

To answer OP's question, I don't think they would be identical, but I think you could get a very good print from either one. And depending on the film and paper, they might have only very subtle differences between the two.

FWIW, I find myself falling increasingly into the camp of "err on the side of a flatter negative", because I've gotten such good results from using Ilford MG at 3, 4, and even 5.

 

[MARTIE]

Where would split grade printing fit into the mix?

I'd just like to point out that in my personal tests sandwiching the negative with reversed lower grade filter above and higher grade filter below, means splitgrade filtration can be done in a single exposure. YMMV

 

[koraks]

splitgrade filtration can be done in a single exposure

There's been quite some discussion about this and the conclusion for me at least is that the essence of split grade is (at least) two different exposures with the benefit of burning & dodging in either or all of these exposures. Exposing with two filters at the same time isn't really 'split grade' - it's just a single grade exposure in exactly the same way you'd do it with a multigrade or color head.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I am now tailoring my negatives to print best with a grade 3 filtration in conjunction with VC papers. I find the prints work better in the higher-contrast-filtration zone. (Still don't like the lousy highlight separation though... That's compared to premium graded papers of the past.)

To the OP's question. It would seem to me that the effect of extended negative development is to sweep the curve upward, resulting in more contrast/separation as the negative densities increase, meaning that the shadows and mid-tones would not change as much. With increased printing contrast, the entire curve is steeper, meaning the increase in contrast would show up more evenly, with shadows and mid-tones getting a touch more separation.

FWIW, I use both filtration and negative development to achieve the contrast I want for flat scenes, e.g., N+1 development and grade 4 filtration to reach an effective N+2. If I think I'm going to run out of filtration options on the contrasty side, I'll develop the negative more.

For reducing contrast, I prefer negative contraction, usually accomplished with SLIMTs, to using filtration lower than #2 or so. That said, I made a print not long ago that needed very low contrast. I made prints on MG classic using a #0 filtration or thereabouts (with a dichroic head) and prints on Grade 1 Galerie (my last few sheets of that, unfortunately). The prints were very similar, with just minor, but noticeable, differences. Both were "keepers."

Best,

Doremus

 

[Paul Howell]

I have not found that simply by changing to higher filter that I can get the same results as I do from a ZS exposed negative printed on grade 2 paper, or using a grade 2 or 2 1/2 filter depending on the brand of VC paper. Printing up with a higher grade filter also changes the lower values. Not much but enough to matter to me. I do not use the ZS when shooting roll film I do use split grade tech. In general I do not have detailed notes and xpose for Z III and develop for Zone VII so any chnages to the shadow details do not stand out me as much as they would when shooting sheet film and exposing for a visualized shadows.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Is it blasphemous to answer if one has gone digital?

I used sheet film and developed for printing on grade 2...originally Oriental Seagull, then Zone VI Brilliant, then Ilford Multigrade IV FB.

I always thought it was easier to dodge & burn at grade 2 than grade 5...much easier to control and much less 'twitchy'.

For minus development I used David Kachel's SLIMT (selective latent image manipulation technique) process which allows you to develop minus development sheets with normal sheets at normal dilution/time/agitation after their SLIMT treatment. This resulted in minus negatives having pretty much normal local contrast in shadows and midtone areas, while higher values were more effected by the SLIMPT process...the higher the value, the more (proportionally) it got pulled back.

 

[chuckroast]

Now you done it! How about pre-soak? Agitation...?

You forgot stand and EMA....

 

[Dan Rainer]

So many insightful comments on this thread. Thanks to everyone for weighing in.

One of the reason why I started this discussion was a thought sparked by Troop and Anschell's "The Film Development Cookbook" (2E). Writing about the limitations of development-based contrast control with modern thin-emulsion negatives, they say:

"Low and high contrast development was a cornerstone of photographic technique from the 1930s to the 1960s (N– and N+ in ZoneSpeak). It was particularly important to Zone System photographers who often recorded high contrast landscape scenes. But with today’s films, low and high contrast development is hard to achieve, and Zone System photographers now rely more on multiple grades of paper than they did in the past. In the foundational days of the Zone System, effective and consistent graded papers were hard to find, and good variable contrast papers were not yet available. There were practical reasons to produce negatives that would print on the normal contrast papers of the day... Today, the Zone System idea of arriving at the perfect negative that will print on Grade 2 paper is not a practical necessity but a philosophical choice."

They move on quickly from this passage without delving into the pros and cons of deviating from that "philosophical choice." I'm sure a nuanced discussion of MG printing was outside the scope of the book, but it left me wondering what exactly was being left on the table by developing flat and letting contrast be decided by the enlarger.
A few paragraphs later they write, "Depending on how flexible both the film and the developer are, you can usually change contrast by at least a 'zone' (one stop) in either direction, by changing development time."

With all that said, I think I've decided on trying the following workflow. I'll have one 120 back with film at my N dev time and rated EI; in a second back I'll have the same film to be developed N+1 (+30%). If I need more expansion, I'll either selenium tone the negative with a 1:2 dilution and/or work with MG contrast controls. The same goes with my 4x5—N or N+1, with selenium or MG filters to give extra expansion as needed. I rarely need N-1 development, but if did I would probably just use Barry Thornton's two-bath, which has excellent highlight compensation.

For reducing contrast, I prefer negative contraction, usually accomplished with SLIMTs, to using filtration lower than #2 or so.

For minus development I used David Kachel's SLIMT (selective latent image manipulation technique) process which allows you to develop minus development sheets with normal sheets at normal dilution/time/agitation after their SLIMT treatment. This resulted in minus negatives having pretty much normal local contrast in shadows and midtone areas, while higher values were more effected by the SLIMPT process...the higher the value, the more (proportionally) it got pulled back.

This is the first I'm hearing about the SLIMT method. Can you recommend good resource to read up on it?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...This is the first I'm hearing about the SLIMT method. Can you recommend good resource to read up on it?

I first read about it in Lynn Radeka's pin registered masking kit instructions. It seems counterintuitive, confusing, and awkward at first but becomes normal in time. In the dark, I used to pre soak up to six 4x5's in open trays, transfer the ones to see minus development into the SLIMT bath, then put both the normal and minus negatives together for normal development.

Here it is straight from the horses mouth...

Zone System Contraction Part III

...and here is an advanced search from this forum:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/search/1437487/?q=slimt&c[title_only]=1&o=date

Kachel has hinted at an easier method and there are probably more options, but SLIMT worked extremely well.

 

[Milpool]

When it comes to tone reproduction / print quality the cookbooks are not good sources. They're nice compilations of old formulas but beyond that it is mostly unfounded opinion / guesswork and repetition of the same old mythology. To be fair, topics such as tone reproduction, photographic controls and sensitometry are problematic in many photography books so it's not unique to the cookbooks.

Great prints sometimes (often) require work. Negative processing is not going to do that work for you.

So many insightful comments on this thread. Thanks to everyone for weighing in.

One of the reason why I started this discussion was a thought sparked by Troop and Anschell's "The Film Development Cookbook" (2E). Writing about the limitations of development-based contrast control with modern thin-emulsion negatives, they say:

"Low and high contrast development was a cornerstone of photographic technique from the 1930s to the 1960s (N– and N+ in ZoneSpeak). It was particularly important to Zone System photographers who often recorded high contrast landscape scenes. But with today’s films, low and high contrast development is hard to achieve, and Zone System photographers now rely more on multiple grades of paper than they did in the past. In the foundational days of the Zone System, effective and consistent graded papers were hard to find, and good variable contrast papers were not yet available. There were practical reasons to produce negatives that would print on the normal contrast papers of the day... Today, the Zone System idea of arriving at the perfect negative that will print on Grade 2 paper is not a practical necessity but a philosophical choice."

They move on quickly from this passage without delving into the pros and cons of deviating from that "philosophical choice." I'm sure a nuanced discussion of MG printing was outside the scope of the book, but it left me wondering what exactly was being left on the table by developing flat and letting contrast be decided by the enlarger.
A few paragraphs later they write, "Depending on how flexible both the film and the developer are, you can usually change contrast by at least a 'zone' (one stop) in either direction, by changing development time."

With all that said, I think I've decided on trying the following workflow. I'll have one 120 back with film at my N dev time and rated EI; in a second back I'll have the same film to be developed N+1 (+30%). If I need more expansion, I'll either selenium tone the negative with a 1:2 dilution and/or work with MG contrast controls. The same goes with my 4x5—N or N+1, with selenium or MG filters to give extra expansion as needed. I rarely need N-1 development, but if did I would probably just use Barry Thornton's two-bath, which has excellent highlight compensation.



This is the first I'm hearing about the SLIMT method. Can you recommend good resource to read up on it?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

...
Great prints sometimes (often) require work. Negative processing is not going to do that work for you.

Amen!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...Great prints sometimes (often) require work. Negative processing is not going to do that work for you.

Not all of it, but there is more wiggle room for dodging, burning, and other theatrics if you are in the middle of the field (negatives developed for grade 2) rather than out near the edges where small printing adjustments result in abrupt print changes.

 

[MARTIE]

Great prints sometimes (often) require work. Negative processing is not going to do that work for you.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
But a good negative is half the battle.

 

[Milpool]

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
But a good negative is half the battle.

There is an awful lot of suggesting otherwise, in virtually any thread on the subject.

Making good negatives is really quite simple, even under challenging conditions.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Making good negatives is really quite simple, even under challenging conditions.

Very much so, though apparently people still really want to mess up their midtones, and/ or to continue failing to understand that fixating on systems of negative development that are largely very reliant on quite primitive (pre mid-1950s) emulsion technology/ knowledge (and even less well thought out developers that don't do anything useful other than making their negs go the colour of various not-very-good colour couplers) - then wonder (at up to book length and beyond) why the systems instigated to radically improve the speed/ grain/ sharpness relationships will happily slam the willfully unwary into a given emulsion's guard rails.