Print grade vs quality

[Nathan King]

Say you have two negatives of the exact same scene. Negative 'A' prints precisely one grade harder than negative 'B'. You print negative 'A' at grade 1 and print 'B' at grade 2 to achieve equal contrast on the prints. Will one print be superior or have a better tonal distribution? Are they truly equal prints?

 

[RobC]

The negative which prints at grade 1 will have higher contrast in the negative. This means one of two things. Either the subject lighting was higher contrast or if subject lighting was the same then the negative was developed more. The more development you give the more grain clumps build. So in the second scenario where more negative devlopment is given, it will be slightly more grainy.

However, whether you can see that is debateable. It may actually improve the look of the print. It may make it look worse. These are subjective considerations so there is no right and wrong.

The main truism is that more development increases contrast and with it larger grain clumps.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's been 30+ years but I settled on slightly over-exposed negs, underdeveloped, then selenium toned to stretch the H&D curve straighter, then onto Ilford Gallery grade 3 which was also selenium toned. That combo gave me excellent microcontrast. Film was Agfapan 25 and 100 developed in Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100. I didn't like the look of Grades 1,2 or 4 Ilford Gallery papers... or any other brand for that matter. But that was a long time ago...

 

[David Lyga]

This is a very good and appropriate question that Nathan has asked. Since I was 14 (1964) I have waged a war against contrast, either 'for' or 'against'.

Are LOW contrast negatives easier to deal with? With contrasty scenes, assuredly. Are high contrast negatives easier to deal with? With low contrast scenes, assuredly, (and, to boot, that allows a faster EI to be allowed as well.)

With single development, as is possible with sheet film, Ansel's way is best. But with most of us mortals, roll film mandates a 'universal' development contrast index. What to do?

I opt for a good, but not excessive, contrast in my negatives, about a gamma of .8 - to .9, which is slightly less than the actual scene. But, it must be said to those who might gloss over this: When you have a grainier negative from 'too much' development, the lower grade paper that you will use to print it on greatly lowers that grain. That point is usually not mentioned within such discussions. Of course, if you print a contrasty negative on a high contrast paper, you are going to get grain. In sum, with a given film, contrast begets more grain whether inherent in the film or due to a higher contrast paper. - David Lyga

 

[RobC]

What is very very rarely pointed out is that altering print contrast not only alters overall contrast but also greatly affects the shape of the toe and shoulder of the paper which in themselves alters the look of a print greatly.

If you have two negatives of exactly the same subject in exactly same lighting, one of them developed to print on grade 1 and one developed to print on grade 2, they WILL look different in the print becasue of different resulting curve shapes. It is the combined negative and print curve which give the final print look.

A short paper toe will give you better highlight separation which is often required. A short paper shoulder will give you better shadow separation which is often desireable. Grade 1 won't do that and often grade 3 is where its at.

But these things are subjective so there are no hard and fast rules as to which is best. Depends on the combined curves/tonal distribution in the subject, film and paper. It's a black art process and not science.

 

[markbarendt]

Say you have two negatives of the exact same scene. Negative 'A' prints precisely one grade harder than negative 'B'. You print negative 'A' at grade 1 and print 'B' at grade 2 to achieve equal contrast on the prints. Will one print be superior or have a better tonal distribution? Are they truly equal prints?

The short answer to the theoretical question is that the prints should be of equal quality.

 

[Nathan King]

Interesting. So there is really no quality trade off between different grades.

 

[RobC]

Interesting. So there is really no quality trade off between different grades.

define what is meant by qualiy and then maybe someone can answer that.

Aesthetic quality? Quality measured in grain size? Quality measured in contrast? Exactly what combination of all the different elements define quality? If you know the correct answer to that then you're probably the only person that does. It's all subjective.

 

[markbarendt]

Interesting. So there is really no quality trade off between different grades.

Correct, again in theory, there is no trade off.

As long as the negative is "designed" to fit the target paper it is to be printed on.

 

[markbarendt]

Quality measured in grain size?

Rob correctly points out that certain "qualities" may change in the negative. Better or Worse depending on the printers point of view. That said...

Quality measured in contrast?

... If an increase of contrast rate in one medium is offset by a decrease in the other then the net effect is theoretically zero visual change when printed.

For example reduced film development may make grain less visible on the negative but increased paper contrast generally makes grain pop more on the print. (And it should work exactly the same the other direction too.)

Theoretically, if the negative and paper are balanced back to equilibrium, the look/graininess in print should be the same regardless.

 

[RobC]

increasing print contrast = less print detail.

increasing neg contrast = ? (I think it doesn't lose detail becasue it stretches the neg curve upwards. But I've never been quite sure about this)

There is a balance which is aesthetically pleasing for the individual. The question is "where is the balance?". We each have to find it for ourselves.

So it may seem that a higher contrast neg and lower contrast print would get you the most print detail (resolution) but at the expense of reducing shadow and highlight separation. Again, the perfect print is a balance of all the elements. Their is happy medium to be found.

In the final analysis the print viewer isn't as anally retentive about print resolution as us photographers are so don't get too worked up about it.

 

[MattKing]

Duplicating slightly RobC's points.....

Film isn't linear. Printing paper isn't linear.

When you talk about contrast, you are generally talking about the contrast at a particular density - a particular part of the curve. Usually a mid-tone or a high mid-tone.

So when you change the contrast of the negative, and then compensate by changing the contrast of your paper, you will end up with the contrast at the mid-tone point being the same, while the contrast of the shadows and/or the highlights will differ.

So the two different prints will look different.

 

[markbarendt]

increasing print contrast = less print detail.

Actually it would be more correct to think of increasing print contrast/paper hardness as resulting in less negative detail being printed. The real physical contrast and constant (the range from max black to paper white) of the paper is essentially fixed regardless of grade. (Yes, some papers have differing max black and white points, but if we assume a fair test like Ilford MGIV...)

increasing neg contrast = ? (I think it doesn't lose detail becasue it stretches the neg curve upwards. But I've never been quite sure about this)

You are right within the max limits of film density, to the shoulder. T-Max 400 is nearly legendary in it's latitude, the range of detail it can gather.

It does need to be understood though that it is rare to print the entire range of detail in any negative. Most negatives (at least those shot by normal mortals) will have extra shadow detail and extra highlight detail available to print if we wanted to change paper grade or burn and dodge.

There is a balance which is aesthetically pleasing for the individual. The question is "where is the balance?". We each have to find it for ourselves.

The individual's personal balance is a perfect standard. Once that balance is found then an increase on one offset by a matching decrease on the other will end up with a comparable result.

 

[markbarendt]

Duplicating slightly RobC's points.....

Film isn't linear. Printing paper isn't linear.

When you talk about contrast, you are generally talking about the contrast at a particular density - a particular part of the curve. Usually a mid-tone or a high mid-tone.

So when you change the contrast of the negative, and then compensate by changing the contrast of your paper, you will end up with the contrast at the mid-tone point being the same, while the contrast of the shadows and/or the highlights will differ.

So the two different prints will look different.

I do agree that as a practical matter it would be quite tough to match absolutely the exact content placement on the print especially at the edges of the range, there are so many variables involved that it becomes nearly impossible to make exact copies from processes that differ.

It is though very possible, even highly likely, to make equally acceptable prints of the same subject and SBR using the two differing processes just as the OP suggested.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

As others pointed out, there are too many other variables other than 'overall contrast'. And as others pointed out, two different prints from two negatives of precisely the same subject in exactly the same lighting, but one developed to print on grade 1 paper and the other developed to print on grade 3 or 4 paper... will look COMPLETELY different.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The print on the higher grade paper can have more "pop" than the lower grade paper.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The print on the higher grade paper can have more "pop" than the lower grade paper.

That's why I always preferred and developed for grade 3. The local contrast was so much better than grade 2, IMO.

 

[markbarendt]

The print on the higher grade paper can have more "pop" than the lower grade paper.

Sure for a single negative if all you change is to use a harder paper grade it can make a print pop more than on the original paper.

If you use a softer flatter contrast negative matched with the harder grade paper the pop shouldn't change.

 

[markbarendt]

As others pointed out, there are too many other variables other than 'overall contrast'. And as others pointed out, two different prints from two negatives of precisely the same subject in exactly the same lighting, but one developed to print on grade 1 paper and the other developed to print on grade 3 or 4 paper... will look COMPLETELY different.

Why?

Seriously, if the negative contrast is matched to the paper in each case so that the same SBR prints in each case why would the prints look appreciably different?

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Matched" to what???? Negatives are like fingerprints. No two are the same. One can learn to develop negs for the probability of ease of printing on a particular grade of paper, but how it actually looks best in print all depends. Sometimes I like to print a particular image on different papers just to see the variations. More than one style might look really good, but in a different manner than another print. Only your eyes can judge. One man's medicine is another man's poison. It's all subjective. Besides, variable contrast papers are far more common than graded papers these days. Methinks certain people need to spend more time in the darkroom and less fiddling with calculators.

 

[RobC]

Why?

Seriously, if the negative contrast is matched to the paper in each case so that the same SBR prints in each case why would the prints look appreciably different?

go back and read what I wrote.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Why?

Seriously, if the negative contrast is matched to the paper in each case so that the same SBR prints in each case why would the prints look appreciably different?

I don't get deep into the mathematics and science. I suggest you try it for yourself. There's nothing more convincing than proving something to one's self. Begin with the premise that you're right and set out to prove your hypothesis.

 

[markbarendt]

I don't get deep into the mathematics and science. I suggest you try it for yourself. There's nothing more convincing than proving something to one's self. Begin with the premise that you're right and set out to prove your hypothesis.

I have. Been back a ways.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have. Been back a ways.

Then you have your answer. According to you I'm wrong and that's okay. I've proven to myself quite the opposite.

 

[markbarendt]

It really depends on how the shapes of both the film and paper curve change with changes in contrast. If the characteristic curves of the film and paper and were both straight lines dmax to dmin and simply changed slope as contrast was adjusted in either case, you could get a constant tone reproduction by increasing print contrast to offset a decrease in negative contrast (and vice versa). This is the situation Mark earlier described as theoretical.

Yep.

However since the shapes of the curves, the lengths of the straight lines relative to shoulder/toe areas etc. can change when the overall gradient is changed, it is impossible to generalize accurately for different films, papers etc.

It can be tested sensitometrically for any given film/paper combo. A tone reproduction diagram can follow the transitions from the original scene luminances through to the paper. If you've got curve data for a particular film at various contrast indexes, and a given paper at different grades, you can do this. In fact Stephen Benskin has (or had) a program which could do this, using a Jones-type "windmill" tone reproduction diagram.

It would be fun to see that here.