Overcast/Soft light, 35mm handheld

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi to all PHOTRIO members.

In this 2019 I decided to read, in chronological order, the whole of the two sub-forums I’ve been reading for some years: B&W and Enlarging… Lots of information from the early 2000’s to present days... It was really interesting.

It’s a wonderful dose of real love reading such precise spirits sharing so much effort and dedication… What a joy learning from Sandy King, Les McLean, Ralph Lambrecht, Patrick Gainer, Tom Hoskinson, DF Cardwell, Richard Wasserman, Steve Sherman, Bob Carnie, Drew Wiley… My deepest gratitude to all of them and to many more here who live deep down into this unforgettable and magical world of photography where we don’t stop learning and experimenting …

2006 was by the way a year with great posting about reduced agitation and all it can offer…

I´d like to start a thread with the title “Overcast/Soft light, 35mm handheld” for several reasons…

The most important one, might be there are lots of valid information in so many threads, but that information, although being absolutely true for every poster’s work and experience, just can’t remain equally valid if we talk about different formats or if we talk about tripod use or not, or even if we talk about controlling wild contrast or not… Many things “depend”, and are clearly true and clearly false at the same time if we’re not specific enough…

The second most important reason for this thread is, the majority of photographs seem to be done, all around the world, with small cameras, without tripod, and avoiding direct sunlight…

I use my Hasselblad and my Arca Swiss 4x5 both with tripod, and shoot under harsh sunlight ocassionally, but for 33 years, back then and right now, possibly more than 90% of the photographs I´ve done and do and will do for pleasure are done with my 35mm rangefinders in the street, or indoors (family and friends) without tripod and away from direct sun…

So I thought it would be fine for all of us now, and for future readers too, having a thread for sharing technical and aesthetic comments, and images too, all related to the most common way of analog photography in the world… I think when Oskar Barnack tried a few film formats before creating his first camera, he went visually for that now common format because above it depth of field decreases quickly, and below it image quality drops noticeably when the negative is enlarged…

Thanks everyone!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Not being English my native language, perhaps I wasn't clear about saying precisely some of the forum members whose names I wrote in the first post, indeed wrote in some of their posts along these past years, that we can't say the same things if we talk about different formats, scenes' contrast, printing size and viewing distance, etc...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

How do you, forum members, think of a common overcast scene (soft light) when it comes to adjusting its contrast to paper: it involves mainly exposure and development...
How close to box speed have you found the best image quality in soft light 35mm frames? (Tonality, acutance, controlled grain...)
And about developers: speed enhancing ones require less light to reach the tone a film was designed for...
Maybe instead of saying, for instance, "Xtol is the best, look at this Kodak drawing", we could say "Xtol isn't capable of some things D-76 can do when dilute"... Or instead of "I shoot landscapes and I consider foliage detail and lack of grain and use of stain the summum of philosophy in photography", we could say "in 35mm negatives presence of grain is better than absence of it, when it's done this way..."
And very important: what type of procedures do you consider wrong for that format and for that kind of light...?
Thanks.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

There's also a subjective order of things, opposed to those that can be considered nearly axiomatic if we talk about a single format and a single type of light...
In my case I like the rich tone and sharpness of bigger negatives: their nature... But I don't like or chase that much those things for 35mm: I like better sharp clean grain in various sizes (depending on films and development) to help acutance, and that look seems to me more natural for 35mm than dissolving grain with solvent developers... That's personal, though we're thousands too...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If someone feels like answering specific questions...
Have you heard about different films being more appropriate for certain types of light? Usually, although the shape of a film's curve can be changed with different developers and types of development, films are designed for being strong at one or two things... It's often said fp4 has a lot of latitude in the shadows and that makes it good for direct sun with rich separated shadows, and hp5 is great for recording shining and reflective surfaces because of its design too... And tri-x is considered very forgiving to exposure and development while producing a unique tonality that seems to mix shadows and lights less objectively than most films, as if the light values borrowed a bit of shadows while the shadows borrow a bit of lighter values for a beautiful sense of predominating contrast...
How do you use those films and their curves, for optimal exposure and developmen in soft light?

 

[Ariston]

I typically use B&W film (Ultrafine Xtreme) for overcast days, but have recently discovered the Velvia performs quite well and somehow squeezes out A LOT of color from subjects on an overcast day. The Velvia is only useful if I can use a tripod, though... so usually I go with the Ultrafine.

A lot of people are more particular about the differences in tonality for B&W than I am. That is probably because a lot of people around here (of whom I am jealous) print with enlargers. I have to use a scanner, so manipulating those curves is not difficult.

 

[Pentode]

I mostly shoot black & white also. In diffuse lighting I’ll often use a film that’s likely to give me a hard negative in full sun like Foma 100, Retro 80s or Pan F. These are films I usually have to be pretty careful with when I develop them because the contrast can get away from me pretty quickly. In diffuse lighting these films are a lot more forgiving but still provide good contrast.

Recently I’ve experimented a little with pushing faster films in diffuse light; HP5, Ilford P4 Surveillance film or Orwo N74+ pushed to 1600 and, so far, I’m liking the results. I’m getting the pronounced grain and blocked shadows that I expect from a two-stop push but not the extreme contrast. I haven’t played that much with it yet, though.

 

[guangong]

Unfortunately, slower films render overcast situations better than faster films. My own experience is to use a RF 35 mm camera such as Leica, Contax or Canon. Even better, if only a single lens will suffice, is a Retina or Contessa with a leaf shutter. I can hold these cameras quite steady at 1/25 second. An SLR, either 35 or 120 is much more difficult, although a Rolleiflex TLR can be held pretty steady at slower speeds.
Decades ago I tried every developer available at Olden in NYC, but finally settled on Rodinal except for very fast films for sake of simplicity. I shoot at box speed.
Like you, I enjoy reading the contributions of those you mentioned, plus many more. Waiting to see how others handle low contrast, poor light situations. I usually begin my day by perusing the latest contributions. It’s great fun reading remarks by true enthusiasts.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I typically use B&W film (Ultrafine Xtreme) for overcast days, but have recently discovered the Velvia performs quite well and somehow squeezes out A LOT of color from subjects on an overcast day. The Velvia is only useful if I can use a tripod, though... so usually I go with the Ultrafine.

A lot of people are more particular about the differences in tonality for B&W than I am. That is probably because a lot of people around here (of whom I am jealous) print with enlargers. I have to use a scanner, so manipulating those curves is not difficult.

Hello Ariston, thanks for posting here!
When a digital print is the final goal, no matter if it was film or a sensor, there are lots of professional hard work to do too if you look for the best: profiles, printers, etc...
Those prints can be beautiful, as indeed the world they show is... They can't live for a long time, though, but, well, few photographs deserve that...
I find using film and wet printing a pleasure, deeply relaxing, and I have never felt the same way while having a digital camera in my hands or while scanning or while printing files... Of course I respect others' ways of feeling about real phoyography and virtual photography... But chances are one day you'll find out how simple it is to set and enjoy a small darkroom...
Have a nice weekend!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I mostly shoot black & white also. In diffuse lighting I’ll often use a film that’s likely to give me a hard negative in full sun like Foma 100, Retro 80s or Pan F. These are films I usually have to be pretty careful with when I develop them because the contrast can get away from me pretty quickly. In diffuse lighting these films are a lot more forgiving but still provide good contrast.

Recently I’ve experimented a little with pushing faster films in diffuse light; HP5, Ilford P4 Surveillance film or Orwo N74+ pushed to 1600 and, so far, I’m liking the results. I’m getting the pronounced grain and blocked shadows that I expect from a two-stop push but not the extreme contrast. I haven’t played that much with it yet, though.

Hello Pentode,
I agree: the most academic and precise technique can go to hell if the scene requires a push and the content is great...
By the way, sometimes it's cool while pushing, instead of exposing for perfectly controlled lights and losing shadow detail, giving just a little more exposure, half a stop or close in a two-stop push, to make the lights share (suffer) a bit of the problem instead of leaving it all to the shadows... It always helps tone and grain, and most of the times it's not a big problem for the lights... Besides, developers designed for pushing can control highlights unexpectedly well.
Happy shooting!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Unfortunately, slower films render overcast situations better than faster films. My own experience is to use a RF 35 mm camera such as Leica, Contax or Canon. Even better, if only a single lens will suffice, is a Retina or Contessa with a leaf shutter. I can hold these cameras quite steady at 1/25 second. An SLR, either 35 or 120 is much more difficult, although a Rolleiflex TLR can be held pretty steady at slower speeds.
Decades ago I tried every developer available at Olden in NYC, but finally settled on Rodinal except for very fast films for sake of simplicity. I shoot at box speed.
Like you, I enjoy reading the contributions of those you mentioned, plus many more. Waiting to see how others handle low contrast, poor light situations. I usually begin my day by perusing the latest contributions. It’s great fun reading remarks by true enthusiasts.

Hi guangong,
Yes, it's important to be trained in making the best possible use of slow speeds... I'm not good nor confident at it: 1/60th is the lowest speed I like with a 35mm lens, and 1/125th with a 50mm lens... Some people recommend doing more than one shot if it's possible, 2 or 3 at the same shutter speed, because depending on breathing and subject, one of them can be preferred... Soft releases and minisoft releases for gentle shutter use, do work... If you want to check them, you can do a search with the name Tom Abrahamsson... I have a few shots done with 1/30th and 1/15th that don't show the low speed at all...
Good light for you!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Do members have access to OFFICIAL information published in the past by films and developers manufacturers (Kodak and Ilford brochures, etc...), explaining how to achieve more acutance by doing x and/or y in comparison to doing their standard recommended development? That was usual decades ago...
I'll call this one Question1... Of course all members are welcome to answer and also to post questions with or without numbers here...
Thank you all!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Do members have access to OFFICIAL information published in the past by films and developers manufacturers (Kodak and Ilford brochures, etc...), explaining how to achieve more acutance by doing x and/or y in comparison to doing their standard recommended development? That was usual decades ago...
I'll call this one Question1... Of course all members are welcome to answer and also to post questions with or without numbers here...
Thank you all!

The simplest and most effective way to improve acutance is to get your negative to print on a hard grade (ideally 4+) by whatever means necessary. If you're working in flat-ish light, developing to a 'normal' contrast index (likely somewhere in the 0.55-0.6 range for a diffusion head) may be all you need to do. An unsharp mask is also an option & is vastly more effective than chopping and changing developers.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The simplest and most effective way to improve acutance is to get your negative to print on a hard grade (ideally 4+) by whatever means necessary. If you're working in flat-ish light, developing to a 'normal' contrast index (likely somewhere in the 0.55-0.6 range for a diffusion head) may be all you need to do. An unsharp mask is also an option & is vastly more effective than chopping and changing developers.

Hi Lachlan Young,
First, thank you very much for chiming in! I've read LOTS of your great posts for years...
I totally agree about making the right (soft enough) negative for good contrast printing... You're right: no better way to start where we need to...
And for condenser enlargers, targetting for galerie (3 is all that's left now...) or filter 3, works much better for soft light scenes than doing it for filter 2...
About Ilford or Kodak recommending more acute ways of development after stating their own standard development, using for improved acutance different dilutions and / or agitation, I've seen just one source: the oldish fp4 (not plus) technical datasheet... It would be nice to see something from Kodak, if it ever did exist...
Thanks again!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Question2
Can reduced agitation (and / or higher dilutions, with different types of developers...) help a negative in any way, if there's common overcast / soft light, (or into the shades in a sunny day) so we're obviously not trying to control a high contrast scene?
This one seems like a tricky question...

 

[john_s]

Over the decades, my negatives have slowly improved, in that they make better prints, and more easily. One of the things I have done is to reduce the frequency of agitation and that is one of the causes of the improvement. Around once every 3min, and a gentle rollover twice, not cocktail shaker style.

Someone said: "expose for the shadows, develop for the midtones, and agitate for the highlights."

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hi Lachlan Young,
First, thank you very much for chiming in! I've read LOTS of your great posts for years...
I totally agree about making the right (soft enough) negative for good contrast printing... You're right: no better way to start where we need to...
And for condenser enlargers, targetting for galerie (3 is all that's left now...) or filter 3, works much better for soft light scenes than doing it for filter 2...
About Ilford or Kodak recommending more acute ways of development after stating their own standard development, using for improved acutance different dilutions and / or agitation, I've seen just one source: the oldish fp4 (not plus) technical datasheet... It would be nice to see something from Kodak, if it ever did exist...
Thanks again!

From what I've learnt in practice, I think the reason the manufacturers don't really recommend what might be perceived as 'higher acutance' developers today is because current films are engineered to use higher iodide content in the emulsions and higher solvency developers - which together allow for a better grain/ sharpness relationship (finer grain and better sharpness) - and that a lot of so-called high acutance developers do nothing other than make bigger grain, at the cost of fine detail definition - however, many people aren't enlarging enough or scanning with adequately competent kit for the differences to be clear. As for agitation intervals (avoid stand development), all I've found is it's a means to finesse the control of overall contrast (which will de-facto affect microcontrast by affecting which grade you land on - if you control for this, the real differences are vanishingly small). This is not to say that you shouldn't try something like dilute (1+2 or 1+3) D-76/ ID-11 or Perceptol & compare to stock or 1+1, or many other developers, just be aware that the quality of your process controls are going to probably have far more impact on your final results than most differences between developers and agitation regimes.
The other thing I've increasingly found is that aiming a negative for a grade or so softer than your final print makes for an overall better image (ie aim for G2, but final print at G3-3.5) - even if you need to use various techniques to print it well. Printing on the 'correct' grade may place the tones 'accurately', but 'accurate' and 'looks right' aren't the same.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

From what I've learnt in practice, I think the reason the manufacturers don't really recommend what might be perceived as 'higher acutance' developers today is because current films are engineered to use higher iodide content in the emulsions and higher solvency developers - which together allow for a better grain/ sharpness relationship (finer grain and better sharpness) - and that a lot of so-called high acutance developers do nothing other than make bigger grain, at the cost of fine detail definition - however, many people aren't enlarging enough or scanning with adequately competent kit for the differences to be clear. As for agitation intervals (avoid stand development), all I've found is it's a means to finesse the control of overall contrast (which will de-facto affect microcontrast by affecting which grade you land on - if you control for this, the real differences are vanishingly small). This is not to say that you shouldn't try something like dilute (1+2 or 1+3) D-76/ ID-11 or Perceptol & compare to stock or 1+1, or many other developers, just be aware that the quality of your process controls are going to probably have far more impact on your final results than most differences between developers and agitation regimes.
The other thing I've increasingly found is that aiming a negative for a grade or so softer than your final print makes for an overall better image (ie aim for G2, but final print at G3-3.5) - even if you need to use various techniques to print it well. Printing on the 'correct' grade may place the tones 'accurately', but 'accurate' and 'looks right' aren't the same.

All of them really interesting points! Thank you!
These days I'm starting to experiment with Microphen for well exposed film, not for pushing... It'll take me some time to try a few different films and dilutions... Basically Tri-x and HP5+ (with fp4+ I don't seek speed), but I don't know why Microphen is seldom used that way, nor why there's so little information around for a good daily use without underexposing... It has less solvent than D-76, and while it's known it's better to use stock solution for a 2-stop push, I guess it must work well at 1+1 and 1+2 for sharper grain and all the speed it can offer after giving the film enough light and lowering its solvent... No idea on agitation schemes and their impact on tone: I feel it "makes" from the start a controlled "push look", but I imagine that can be adequate for soft light and a slight expansion... Of course only in the darkroom are the answers hiding... Perhaps at box speed I could get a clean tone as if using half box speed with standard developers... Good for stopping down in the street without losing shadows... I know it's not a lot more speed, but I'd appreciate being able to set a system using the next smaller f-stop... Things really change regarding DOF, field curvature, etc...

Great post as usual! Have a nice day.

 

[Lachlan Young]

All of them really interesting points! Thank you!
These days I'm starting to experiment with Microphen for well exposed film, not for pushing... It'll take me some time to try a few different films and dilutions... Basically Tri-x and HP5+ (with fp4+ I don't seek speed), but I don't know why Microphen is seldom used that way, nor why there's so little information around for a good daily use without underexposing... It has less solvent than D-76, and while it's known it's better to use stock solution for a 2-stop push, I guess it must work well at 1+1 and 1+2 for sharper grain and all the speed it can offer after giving the film enough light and lowering its solvent... No idea on agitation schemes and their impact on tone: I feel it "makes" from the start a controlled "push look", but I imagine that can be adequate for soft light and a slight expansion... Of course only in the darkroom are the answers hiding... Perhaps at box speed I could get a clean tone as if using half box speed with standard developers... Good for stopping down in the street without losing shadows... I know it's not a lot more speed, but I'd appreciate being able to set a system using the next smaller f-stop... Things really change regarding DOF, field curvature, etc...

Great post as usual! Have a nice day.

I'd suggest trying to dig out a Photo Lab Index from the 1970's - there's one on archive.org from about the era that HP5 was introduced - it has quite a bit of detail (somewhere around pp. 480-500 I recall) on Microphen's effects on speed - general recommendation was that it raised the toe speed by about 1/2 to 2/3 stop - what makes it especially useful is that the data sheet dates from the era when Ilford gave G-bar 0.55 and 0.7 times for condenser and cold cathode respectively - before they started to give the G-bar 0.62 compromise time (closest to the ISO design contrast I think). As regards Microphen's speed boost being less well known - as a product I think it was generally much less well known outside of Ilford's core domestic/ export markets until the 1990's - and by then Kodak Xtol and Ilford's DDX were doing the same thing, but somewhat further along the same evolutionary branch.

 

[pentaxuser]

). As regards Microphen's speed boost being less well known - as a product I think it was generally much less well known outside of Ilford's core domestic/ export markets until the 1990's - and by then Kodak Xtol and Ilford's DDX were doing the same thing, but somewhat further along the same evolutionary branch.

I may have misunderstood what you have said here Lachlan but I think you are saying that Xtol and DDX give as much of a speed boost as does Microphen but evolved later? If my deduction is correct about your conclusion then besides offering the same speed boost ( half a stop is generally claimed) does Xtol and DDX offer anything else that makes it a better developer overall?

I ask this because I recall on a forum called FADU that someone who frequented it and Photrio and who appeared to do a reasonably scientific experiment with a number of developers claimed that he had evidence that only Microphen gave true box speed i.e. 3200 with Ilford D3200

I am a long time user of Xtol but have since been tempted to see if Microphen really gives the true advertised speed (3200) with Ilford D3200

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

I may have misunderstood what you have said here Lachlan but I think you are saying that Xtol and DDX give as much of a speed boost as does Microphen but evolved later? If my deduction is correct about your conclusion then besides offering the same speed boost ( half a stop is generally claimed) does Xtol and DDX offer anything else that makes it a better developer overall?

I ask this because I recall on a forum called FADU that someone who frequented it and Photrio and who appeared to do a reasonably scientific experiment with a number of developers claimed that he had evidence that only Microphen gave true box speed i.e. 3200 with Ilford D3200

I am a long time user of Xtol but have since been tempted to see if Microphen really gives the true advertised speed (3200) with Ilford D3200

Thanks

pentaxuser

DDX (and the DD replenished variant) and Xtol seem to be optimised variants on the theme of Microphen with better utilisation of the understanding between solvency and sharpness, especially as it relates to iodide placement in the emulsions and the ability of solvent developers to reveal more development sites. Ilford are pretty clear in the Delta 3200 data that DDX and Microphen are essentially equal choices - and that they're not going to achieve anything greater than perhaps 2/3 stop over the ISO test speed of 1000 in ID-11 - ie a baseline of 1250-1600. Where your claimant on FADU got his results from, I don't know, but he's making a significant error somewhere! I've used all manner of developers on Delta 3200 with more than printable results - my only major comment would be that 99% of users need to pay more attention to the characteristic curve behaviour and take care in choice of development time & EI rather than chopping and changing developers.

 

[pentaxuser]

DDX (and the DD replenished variant) and Xtol seem to be optimised variants on the theme of Microphen with better utilisation of the understanding between solvency and sharpness,

Thanks for the reply I'll try and have a look for his thread to see what he said a little more precisely .

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Do you know if in the case of microphen, making it less solvent helps for a bit more speed as it's said about other developers? Again, not for real pushing but for developing well exposed film... Once I read data on HCB and other masters using microphen (60's-70's?), and I guess they didn't push very much in general...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Do you know if in the case of microphen, making it less solvent helps for a bit more speed as it's said about other developers? Again, not for real pushing but for developing well exposed film... Once I read data on HCB and other masters using microphen (60's-70's?), and I guess they didn't push very much in general...

I think the general comment from those who printed for Cartier Bresson was that he tended to overexpose. And deep tank/ replenished Microphen should generally behave not wildly differently from diluted 1+1 or 1+2 (opinions vary).

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Question3. In the usual overcast or passing clouds shooting, sometimes we get direct sunlight, and occasionally we want to quickly capture a relevant subject inside that high contrast, instead of forgetting about it forever...
How do you do it?
I've done different things through the years... When I was very young, I shot at 400 in autoexposure for a long time: no worries at all... It worked kind of OK...
Then I started studying, and I used to carry a second camera with lens for high contrast, at half box speed with a shorter development, BECAUSE my main camera was for soft light (400 at 1600...) and while pushing, totally blocked shadows on a sunny day look so awful, unnatural: cold instead of sunny ...
Later, for some years I preferred to carry for those rather unusual cases just a rangefinder body with cap... Small, but not perfect either.
When I started avoiding underexposure (and overdevelopment) recently, I felt, again, getting a decent sunny scene inside a flat light roll is possible...
But what led me to it, was the simple fact that it's absurd sometimes to try and use 2 cameras at the same time when sun and shades are mixed or even on the two sides of a street: there's just no time to switch cameras even if they're ready... That made me think, recently, that's why some good photographers end up simply using the same camera no matter is the roll's an expansion one for overcast...
So, what's a good way to do it for you?
I've heard people preferring caution while exposing, to avoid blown highlights, and on the contrary, I've also heard of more exposure, to fill shadows...
Any tips or general considerations?
Thanks.