printing: high local contrast with control of overall contrast?

With many of my negs I find that the qualities I most like in the mid tones come from using something like a grade 4 paper. This often results in losing the hilights unless I print darker to bring the whole tonal range down which is then too dark overall. I don't think that burning in is going to be an option with too many discrete or small hilight areas. At the moment I usually have to sacrifice the feel I want by dropping the contrast down by a grade or half.

Is there any way to retain the higher local contrast of the mid-tones that i need but retaining a lower overall contrast to save the hilights?

I'm using Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25. I suspect that i may need to reduce the contrast in the negs in the longer term through pulling the dev time a little but is there a printing solution for the negs I already have?

Example?

I don't have a scanner. I'll try and do some at work next week.

After your initial grade 4 exposure you could go back and burn in your highlights in with a grade 0. I do this frequently with landscapes with overcast skies. Ignore the sky in determining overall contrast, get the foreground the correct contrast then burn the sky to desired density with grade 0. This is a variation of split-grade printing. Search the archives, there are tons of threads on this topic. It's a very valuable printing tool.

Have you tried a different paper? I find it much easier to get what I like on Ilford papers for my negatives and the way I print. I also find myself printing a grade lower on Ilford than Foma.

I'm wondering if flashing would work?

Jon

This is the main reason why masking is such a great tool. With a carefully made mask, you can do that.

I have for 25 years printed my work on harder contrast papers to effect just the look you speak of, good rich contrast in the mid tones. I learned through trail and error that developing the neg to a lower contrast index was the best and easiest way to achieve the look you are after.

Masks, flashing, and extensive burning are a means to an end for negs already processed. The most effective way to control global contrast is at the time of development. Further, with today's multi contrast papers these lower contrast negs produce extraordinary prints with relatively little effort.

The best way to utilize today's multi contrast papers is to use only the highest and lowest contrast light or filter at your disposal. As Brian indicated, make initial determinations and print exposure for the mid tones with the highest contrast light and then bring the highlights into range with the lower contrast light.

Try semi-stand development of your film. The acknowledged master of this technique for silver printing is Steve Sherman.

Take a look at this and this. The contrast range in this place is off the charts, yet he got good midtone microcontrast throughout the scene.

Steve Sherman said:

I have for 25 years printed my work on harder contrast papers to effect just the look you speak of, good rich contrast in the mid tones. I learned through trail and error that developing the neg to a lower contrast index was the best and easiest way to achieve the look you are after.

Further, with today's multi contrast papers these lower contrast negs produce extraordinary prints with relatively little effort.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm starting to find in my own work as well. I spent the last year trying to produce negatives that were properly exposed and developed using the maximum black proofing test, proper zone VIII being just darker than paper white, contact sheet printing.. etc. What it resulted in were negatives that were too dense. Steve is right, thinner negatives are easier to print, and the reward is increased mid tone separation. Now I make sure my negatives are properly exposed as I always have, but I develop less.

Mark Fisher said:

Have you tried a different paper? I find it much easier to get what I like on Ilford papers for my negatives and the way I print. I also find myself printing a grade lower on Ilford than Foma.

Click to expand...

To get even more basic,different film/developer combinations will alter internal contrast. The same is true with paper/developer combinations. Split filter printing helps if using variable contrast paper. Two developers work very well with graded papers.

Beyond this, pre-exposure of parts or all of the paper are often used to vary contrast. Then there is always masking which can be used to increase or decrease contrast in parts of the image.

Look for a copy of "Lootens on Enlarging & Print Quality". Read it a few times and you will be amazed how much your printing will improve. Itis a very easy read and crammed with information that has been forgotten, or never learned, by most photographic printers.

You may want to try something other than Rodinal. Rodinal gives an 'all toe/upswept' characteristic where contrast increases in the highlights.

Try a roll in D-76 and see if that produces prints more to your liking. And, as mentioned, be careful not to over develop.

brian steinberger said:

This is exactly what I'm starting to find in my own work as well. I spent the last year trying to produce negatives that were properly exposed and developed using the maximum black proofing test, proper zone VIII being just darker than paper white, contact sheet printing.. etc. What it resulted in were negatives that were too dense. Steve is right, thinner negatives are easier to print, and the reward is increased mid tone separation. Now I make sure my negatives are properly exposed as I always have, but I develop less.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you brought this up, because I've noticed that rolls that are developed according to instructions give me highlights that are difficult to burn in, as opposed to underdeveloped rolls which require higher paper grades but are overall easier to control in the printing. Still, I find it hard to understand why this is so, since one would think that the lower contrast provided by the negative would be offset by the higher contrast gotten by increasing the paper grade.

if you want to stick with rodinal then you need to dilute it down to at least 1:100 just to roll off the highlights. if you are prepared to experiment then 1:150 - 1:200, inversions every 5 minutes for around an hour - 1.5 hours should give you a neg that has good midtone separation with highlights brought within printing range. with a little experimentation you'll be rewarded with the look you are after. hope this helps.

You also might want to read the articles by David Kachel on contrast control:
http://www.davidkachel.com/history.html

If you're going to flatten the contrast of your negatives, you may take away the potential to make larger prints with that same negative and limiting your options with it. You can use VC paper with split contrast and some burning of highlights at a lower contrast. Also, one of the best ways to control local contrast is selective bleaching of certain areas.

jordanstarr said:

You can use VC paper with split contrast and some burning of highlights at a lower contrast.

Click to expand...

This is how I'd deal with it. Ascertain your soft/hard exposures and then selectively dodge the midtone areas during the soft exposure. This has the effect of increasing the contrast in that area.

jordanstarr said:

If you're going to flatten the contrast of your negatives, you may take away the potential to make larger prints with that same negative and limiting your options with it. You can use VC paper with split contrast and some burning of highlights at a lower contrast. Also, one of the best ways to control local contrast is selective bleaching of certain areas.

Click to expand...

My experience tells me as you increase the enlargement of any negative the resulting print becomes more difficult to print at the same contrast you are able to use at a smaller enlargement.

All the techniques mentioned here are corrective measures used to control negative contrast that is incorrect for the desired "final look" that the maker strives for.

I would suggest the most efficient way to arrive at the "final look" the maker strives for is to design the developed negative to address the most difficult component of the printing process for that scene. Most times that will be the micro contrast which resides in the mid tones where photographers want a more dramatic look as tonalities change.

To generally describe the negatives I believe offer the most flexible approach to the most difficult component of the silver printing process is to begin with negative with LOW global contrast and HIGH micro contrast.

To Jim's point, the semi-stand technique is the perfect means to that end, however, the majority of today's photographers cannot reason beyond the whole adjacency and increased sharpness debate which I have grown tired of defending.

My 2 cents, Cheers

Steve Sherman said:

To Jim's point, the semi-stand technique is the perfect means to that end, however, the majority of today's photographers cannot reason beyond the whole adjacency and increased sharpness debate which I have grown tired of defending.

Click to expand...

Steve, at the great risk of asking you to do exactly what you've indicated you do not want to do, could you spare a moment to clarify what you mean by "can't reason beyond the whole adjacency/increased sharpness debate"? I'm guessing that you mean semi-stand development benefits local contrast differentiation and not solely through adjacency/increased sharpness (although many people focus solely on semi-stand's adjacency/sharpness benefits). I could be totally wrong in my interpretation, though. If the whole thing gives you the heeby-jeebies, then feel free to ignore this question.

Thanks,
Leo

36cm2 said:

Steve, at the great risk of asking you to do exactly what you've indicated you do not want to do, could you spare a moment to clarify what you mean by "can't reason beyond the whole adjacency/increased sharpness debate"?

Thanks,
Leo

Click to expand...

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm putting words in Steve's mouth, but I think he means that the incredible (and it really does stun you when you first see it) increase in sharpness you get with the technique seduces one into standardizing on it for the wrong reason.

It's true benefit is contrast control in the midtones (and to a great extent the highlights) and not the increase in apparent sharpness. Indeed, I don't use it for much of my photography simply because the meta-sharpness is inappropriate for my work. However, when it is appropriate, there's nothing else quite like it.

Thanks, c6h6o3. I'll have to use it for everything now, since we all know that sharpness is the most important aspect of photography. Just kidding. Sounds like a useful approach. So for contrast control, the point is the semistand locally exhausts developer to lessen local contrast in the highlights and midtones? I'll dig around with the search function, I'm sure there are many threads on this stuff. I'll just sift through the accutance fixation.
Thanks,
Leo

brian steinberger said:

... Steve is right, thinner negatives are easier to print... Now I make sure my negatives are properly exposed as I always have, but I develop less.

Click to expand...

True, but how old this 'rule'?

When in doubt: overexpose and underdevelop!

It must be 100 years plus.

36cm2 said:

Thanks, c6h6o3. I'll have to use it for everything now, since we all know that sharpness is the most important aspect of photography. Just kidding. Sounds like a useful approach. So for contrast control, the point is the semistand locally exhausts developer to lessen local contrast in the highlights and midtones? I'll dig around with the search function, I'm sure there are many threads on this stuff. I'll just sift through the accutance fixation.
Thanks,
Leo

Click to expand...

Try to get hold of Steve's articles in View Camera magazine from a few years back. 2004? 2005? I'm not sure when they were published.

36cm2 said:

Steve, at the great risk of asking you to do exactly what you've indicated you do not want to do, could you spare a moment to clarify what you mean by "can't reason beyond the whole adjacency/increased sharpness debate"? I'm guessing that you mean semi-stand development benefits local contrast differentiation and not solely through adjacency/increased sharpness (although many people focus solely on semi-stand's adjacency/sharpness benefits). I could be totally wrong in my interpretation, though. If the whole thing gives you the heeby-jeebies, then feel free to ignore this question.

Thanks,
Leo

Click to expand...

Hi Leo,

I have often said the internet is the best thing to happen in a long time, and the worst. The sharing of knowledge by well informed photogs has taught me many things I would not have known if not for the internet. However, it has also taught me there are all to many people who enjoy if not convent the opportunity to expound on topics they have little practical experience or knowledge about, I call them "forum photographers". End of the soap box!

My area of expertise is very narrow, silver printing and making negatives for that process. Nearly all my experience comes for years of trial and error and an unusually large waste basket, where both negatives and prints have gone to rest.

That said, and certainly not to offend anyone in this thread or elsewhere, I know what works best and most efficiently for that process and pass that information along freely. However, I have little inclination or time to constantly defend my observations so in the end the more persistent forum contributor sways the unknowing and so the cycle continues. Sorry, that's another mini soap box!

It's well documented how and why the reduced agitation technique works and the benefits it can produce. Reference either my discussions or Sandy King's discussions of this topic for real and accurate information. For me personally, the technique is much more about the creative possibilities afforded the LF photog than any increase in adjacency or sharpness. In fact, I have learned again through trial and error there are some drawbacks to this magic bullet if you will that cannot be overcome. An issue for another time. Back to the creative part, reduced agitation does three things that most fine printers have battled for eons. Film speed is maximized, midtone (micro) contrast is maximized and highlight compression is maximized. Therefore, one who is proficient at this technique should be able to photograph in ANY lighting situation, whether it be too little contrast or extreme literal contrast.

There are two extreme examples on my web site (sorry I don't know how to link the photos as Jim did). One is the panoramic of the prison interior where measured contrast was 14 zones apart and another (Penile Colony) where measured contrast was less than 3 zones. Each image has nearly identical micro contrast and both were printed on hard contrast AZO, all because global contrast in the negative was executed at exposure and designed for the final printing material, in this case AZO.

If you have an interest in exploring the technique this link goes back to a lengthy and very descriptive explanation of my methods with commentary from numerous photogs in particular Sandy King.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I'll close with this, I just returned from a week in Toronto where a solo exhibition of my photography was sandwiched in between several masters who were giving three day workshops. One of the notables was a well known "digital negative / wet process" guy. I told him I believe I can do anything in the darkroom that he could do with a computer, he scoffed and said "Hogwash"... and then he saw my prints!

Small apology on the Soap Box comments and hope this advances your photography!

Cheers

Steve Sherman said:

I told him I believe I can do anything in the darkroom that he could do with a computer, he scoffed and said "Hogwash"... and then he saw my prints!

Click to expand...

Nobody does quite what you do, Steve, using any technique be it digital or wet.

Here's a link to Penile Colony, Leo. (It's my favorite out of all his work.) The Eastern State Prison panoramic he refers to was one of the ones linked in my earlier post.