Printing challenging (thin) negatives

[trexx]

I would recommend trying pre-flashing your paper before printing ...

Pre-flashing your paper means giving it a very short exposure overall (without a negative in your enlarger!) without visibly fogging the paper... You should be able to find plenty of info on the exact method here on APUG. Having a second enlarger, as I luckily do, is a great help for this, but it can be done with one.

Pre-flashing is a good technique and I recommend also.

But sometimes I pre-flash with the negative in place. I take a gallon plastic milk jug, the ones roughly square on each side, and cut an opening for the lens on one side where the lens can fit. Then I pre-flash through the jug. Brighter areas get less pre-flash then the highlights. Which further tends to help improve the contrast.

TR

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I would recommend trying pre-flashing your paper before printing any of these contrasty-but-thin negatives on it. Actually, looking at the results and reading your story, I don't know if they actually should qualify as "thin", merely contrasty.

Pre-flashing your paper will help in getting highlight detail, while still obtaining good black, as it reduces the overall contrast of the print.

Pre-flashing your paper means giving it a very short exposure overall (without a negative in your enlarger!) without visibly fogging the paper... You should be able to find plenty of info on the exact method here on APUG. Having a second enlarger, as I luckily do, is a great help for this, but it can be done with one.

Marco

Why do you call it pre-flashing? It doesn't matter if you flash before or after the main exposure.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I was going to ask you if you used a mask; such elaborate dodging would seem to require it. How do you make such a mask? Do you make a mask with film and sandwich it with the negative, or do you make a mask with film or paper and sandwich it with the print? I have made simple masks by cutting things out of RC paper but I'm sure there more to learn.

This one was done from photographic paper. A tedious process.

 

[pentaxuser]

Oh jeez, the answer was literally staring me in the face the whole time: too much diffusion. It was too much for the low-contrast shadows. I figured it had to be something simple! I'm so used to using a certain amount that I wasn't even thinking about it.

You appear to have solved the problem and that's great but can you explain what you mean by too much diffusion?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[BetterSense]

Why do you call it pre-flashing? It doesn't matter if you flash before or after the main exposure.

Of course it does. Flashing after the exposure would be an entirely different thing...I think.

 

[trexx]

Of course it does. Flashing after the exposure would be an entirely different thing...I think.

Adding density makes no difference if it comes before the main exposure or after. It is not like adding paint where the last added has dominance.

 

[BetterSense]

Adding density makes no difference if it comes before the main exposure or after. It is not like adding paint where the last added has dominance.

My understanding is that preflashing does not add density, or at least it's not done to add density. It is done to sensitize the paper, so that it reacts differently to subsequent exposure.

 

[Mike1234]

That is correct for the most part. Years ago I routinely pre-flashed my film to +.1 over FB+F to retain shadow details on color copy work. Flashing afterwords will still fog the film but has no effect on increasing sensitivity because the main exposure is already done.

 

[Rob Archer]

One approach not yet mentioned is to intensify the negatives. There are various ways to do this. Search APUG and you're bound to find a few. I simply use selenium toner at 1:3 for 2 - 5 minutes.

Obviously better to get a good neg in the first place but often easier said than done!

Rob

 

[Mike1234]

The only intensification processes of which I'm aware affect highlights far more than shadows. So, even though intensification will increase contrast this won't help with retention of shadow detail by itself. Granted though... it's been a long time ago since I dealt with those issues.

I do love selenium toner on negs to enhance tonal range and shadow detail (over exposure & underdevelopment plus toning)... but that's a different story.

 

[Mike1234]

Since you're scanning I suggest you play with the curve to increase contrast in the lowest/highest values.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Of course it does. Flashing after the exposure would be an entirely different thing...I think.

Some literature suggests a difference, but during all the testing I've done, I never could prove a difference. 1+2=3 and so does 2+1. The exposures just add up. I saw absolutely no difference in pre- or post-flashing.

Theoretically there should be a difference, because the latent image stability of a small exposure followed by a larger exposure will be different than the other way around. However, if both exposure are done in quick succession, this will not have a visible effect, and it's just a simple addition of exposures.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The only intensification processes of which I'm aware affect highlights far more than shadows. So, even though intensification will increase contrast this won't help with retention of shadow detail by itself. Granted though... it's been a long time ago since I dealt with those issues.

I do love selenium toner on negs to enhance tonal range and shadow detail (over exposure & underdevelopment plus toning)... but that's a different story.

Selenium toner can be used for proportional intensification (highlights and shadows are intensified by the same percentage, which increases contrast). What you want is a sub-proportional intensifier, which increases shadows more than highlights and reduces contrast. However, the chemistry too toxic for me to realistically recommend it. If you are interested, search the web for articles by Liam Lawless. I consider him to be the expert of 'Negative First Aid', which is the title of his four-part series.

 

[Mike1234]

That's not my experience AT ALL... selenium always increased contrast on my negs... meaning it affected highlights more than shadows. I liked it because the resulting neg had a longer "straight line" (combined with overexposure and underdevelopment) than untoned negs which increased tonal separation in both shadows and highlights.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That's not my experience AT ALL... selenium always increased contrast on my negs... meaning it affected highlights more than shadows...

Mike

Not sure if this was a reply to my post, but if it was, I said the same thing by stating:

Selenium toner can be used for proportional intensification (highlights and shadows are intensified by the same percentage, which increases contrast).

 

[Mike1234]

Ralph... not really... because, IM experience, selenium toning affects highlights more than shadows. So selenium toning will worsen he problem of missing shadow detail.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph... not really... because, IM experience, selenium toning affects highlights more than shadows. So selenium toning will worsen he problem of missing shadow detail.

Mike

I agree with you. That's what I said!
That's what proportional intensifiers such as selenium do. They are called 'proportional', because they affect highlight and shadow densities at about the same percentage. But a 10% increase for a 0.1 shadow density is not the same as a 10% increase for a 1.2 highlight density, hence, the contrast increase.

 

[polyglot]

Does the application of selenium toner to a negative therefore make it have an all-toe (concave upswept) H-D curve? Because I would really like some means to be able to achieve that other than scanning and PS.

 

[2F/2F]

Does the application of selenium toner to a negative therefore make it have an all-toe (concave upswept) H-D curve? Because I would really like some means to be able to achieve that other than scanning and PS.

It has the same basic effect as increasing development, but without the increased grain. For small format, if I am trying to get the best sharpness while pushing, I will often push one-half to one stop less than I need to, and tone to get the extra stop. For medium and larger formats, I usually don't bother. My totally blasted (+ developed) medium and large format negs usually look fine as far as grain and sharpness go, so I don't bother. It is also a great way to make sure you don't push too far in unsure lighting/metering. You don't push too far, then check out the negs. If they need more, then you tone them.

 

[Mike1234]

Mike

I agree with you. That's what I said!

Sorry, Ralph. I didn't fully read your posts. I'm just too tired and forgetful/confused these days.

 

[dancqu]

Graded Paper Safelights

I used to use graded paper exclusively but switched after
my favorite was discontinued. I'm going to have to try
another round of paper tests, thanks!

You can have a noticeable improvement in your level of
darkroom illumination by making the switch. Yellow to
orange-ish safelighting makes for easy seeing about.
A good reason in itself for using Graded. Dan

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Does the application of selenium toner to a negative therefore make it have an all-toe (concave upswept) H-D curve? Because I would really like some means to be able to achieve that other than scanning and PS.

Attached a simplified graph, how intensifiers work. Selenium is a proportional intensifier. You'll find recipes for all thee kinds of intensification, but most ingredients are too toxic to recommend without strong hesitation.

 

[clayne]

Attached a simplified graph, how intensifiers work. Selenium is a proportional intensifier. You'll find recipes for all thee kinds of intensification, but most ingredients are too toxic to recommend without strong hesitation.

Is there actually even an available sub-proportional intensifier out there (that isn't incredibly toxic, e.g. mercury)?

 

[Bosaiya]

You appear to have solved the problem and that's great but can you explain what you mean by too much diffusion?

I almost always add a certain amount of diffusion to my prints. For example during a ten-second exposure I might diffuse the print for anywhere from two to eight seconds, depending on the shot. This softens things up a bit and gives me the look I intended when pre-visualizing. Works great on high-contrast negatives but not so well on low-contrast, which makes perfect sense.

The problem was I printed over 100 photos the past few days and I got into a rhythm out of necessity and lost the forest for the trees, as it were.