question about n+ with pyrocat..

[chris77]

hello apug.
i have been making photographs in a gorge, in the snow, shadow only, no direct sun hits the little frozen river. high snow.

so... somehow big contrast between the darkest parts (stones, branches) abd the white snow, and somehow not, as all the white,almost icy blue snow within itself is kind of the same..

i just developed one roll, tri x in pyrocat hd using s.kings minimal agitation (1min, after that 10 seconds at the quarter-marks) for 16 minutes as i wanted it to be a n+ development.
for normal i use 13 minutes..

what happened is, that now i have very nice darker bits, as they have moved up a bit, but all the contrast within the snow hasnt become bigger, maybe the opposite..

any opinions if this agitation scheme is only good when there is rather too much general contrast and to retain the highlights?
and if so, how about other approaches?

was my first time shooting in such condition.
cheers and thanks for good advice, will go to the darkroom on monday... splitgrade here i come...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

To get nice darker bits, expose more. That will move them up the toe of the curve more. Then control the lighter values with development, either N+ for more contrast or N- for less. Are you agitating 10 seconds every 15 seconds? If so, that's a bit much for my tastes.

 

[chris77]

Generally the idea behind this technique is to maximize edge effects (ie "microcontrast") while reducing overall contrast (N- development). If you didn't get enough overall contrast, increase development time. Or use regular agitation.

in this case, applying this scheme within such lighting conditions in the snow should work out perfectly, no?
brings up the question:
will extending this agitation scheme in time move the highlights further into the shoulder and work against its own benefit? or is microcontrast not affected?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Increased agitation will increase overall contrast. If you are looking for an increase in local contrast, unsharp masks are the way to go. I have used this technique mainly with sheet films, and occasionally with roll films.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pyrocat-HD diluted a little more is probably the best stand/semi-stand developer. That's another great way to increase shadow contrasts and edge effects.

 

[chris77]

Pyrocat-HD diluted a little more is probably the best stand/semi-stand developer. That's another great way to increase shadow contrasts and edge effects.

please dont blur this thread. sofar you havent got my point. which is, of course, not a problem.

maybe i havent been clear enough.... hmmm
tx anyway

 

[John Wiegerink]

For the type scene you are talking about, which is no bright sun on a snow scene, I would use a regular development style with Pyrocat-HD. I really don't think the edge effects and slight compensation are really needed or even wanted in this type lighting. Regular agitation with Pyrocat-HD will give you all you want in the way of sharpness. Regular agitation will give you the contrast you desire much easier than trying stand or semi-stand. If your scene had super-bright sunlight and deep shadows then semi-stand or a full stand development might work better. Notice I said "might" work better.
Let me put it this way and you might understand it a little better. You think your overcast snow scene is high contrast, but it's actually not. Also, we do not know exactly how you metered your overcast snow scene either and that could be part of the problem. Scenes like this work well for taking an incident reading and tacking on one stop of exposure. That will kick all the values up a little. Then, if you want whiter snow you'll have to add some development time to bring those highlights up, but like I said, I'd use regular agitation and development and not stand. But that's just me of course and somebody else here will probably have a better idea. They usually do!

 

[chris77]

You think your overcast snow scene is high contrast, but it's actually not. Also, we do not know exactly how you metered your overcast snow scene either and that could be part of the problem. Scenes like this work well for taking an incident reading and tacking on one stop of exposure. That will kick all the values up a little...

tx for your reply
thats the whole point, sbr is in fact narrow, 6 maybe, didnt meter everything. spotmetered the snow, and put it on VIII, worked out fine, important shadows are very well exposed, id say IV, couldnt meter it.

for the more important roll, acros shot at 64, same conditions, i developed in pyrocat hd, 1:1:100, 15 min, with50" continuos agitation, and then every other minute two gentle inversions.

came out dense, surprise surprise, but nothing blocked up and contrast seems slightly expanded.
will print next week..
acros really got a long straight line.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

You can't make contrast in the negative where none existed in the scene. Yes, the snow may have been bright, but snow in soft lighting is very often extremely uniform in texture, i.e., no microcontrast, and ends up being a uniform shade of gray or white in the print. There is often not much to do but plan for this and live with it. However...

...there are a couple ways to coax more texture out of the very little that may be there. The first steps should have been done when shooting. A red filter tends to darken holes and crevices in even shaded snow, since the deeper the light penetrates through the snow, the more red gets absorbed, meaning that these deep parts (holes, etc.) are bluer than the surface. Also, in such flat lighting, I'll often create an "unprintable" negative intentionally, i.e., one that has way too much overall contrast, say N+2 when N would have done the job. Then I'll see if I can't indeed print it, using extreme dodging and burning. The extra contrast makes the printing more difficult, but helps the texture in that flat snow. When printing, you can often burn the snow with the highest contrast filter (I'll often use a #47 blue filter) to help what little separation is there. Often these burn times are quite long; have patience.

A big part of dealing with such situations is learning to recognize them in the first place. Then you know what you're getting yourself into. Sometimes I'll just not take the shot: "A great scene with bad light makes a bad photograph."

Best,

Doremus

 

[chris77]

well, gotta say these negatives came out fine.
considering how flat the light was one cannot imagine a contrasty negative. maybe other developing schemes are more suitable to create more expansion, more agitation, but in my opinion agitating every other minute is fine with pyro, slight edge effects, sharpness is top!
developed another roll that was shot in somewhat bright sunlight in the same way. still nothing blocks up, but i can definitely say that acros seems faster than iso64 then.. rather box speed, or in between.
chris

 

[chris77]

You can't make contrast in the negative where none existed in the scene. Yes, the snow may have been bright, but snow in soft lighting is very often extremely uniform in texture, i.e., no microcontrast, and ends up being a uniform shade of gray or white in the print. There is often not much to do but plan for this and live with it. However...

...there are a couple ways to coax more texture out of the very little that may be there. The first steps should have been done when shooting. A red filter tends to darken holes and crevices in even shaded snow, since the deeper the light penetrates through the snow, the more red gets absorbed, meaning that these deep parts (holes, etc.) are bluer than the surface. Also, in such flat lighting, I'll often create an "unprintable" negative intentionally, i.e., one that has way too much overall contrast, say N+2 when N would have done the job. Then I'll see if I can't indeed print it, using extreme dodging and burning. The extra contrast makes the printing more difficult, but helps the texture in that flat snow. When printing, you can often burn the snow with the highest contrast filter (I'll often use a #47 blue filter) to help what little separation is there. Often these burn times are quite long; have patience.

A big part of dealing with such situations is learning to recognize them in the first place. Then you know what you're getting yourself into. Sometimes I'll just not take the shot: "A great scene with bad light makes a bad photograph."

Best,

Doremus

thanks for your reply.i guess what you say is spot on. but i do disagree that a visiualized image becomes a bad photograph if the light is not good, too flat or whatever. but then i am hardly going for literal representation in my photography. and where contrast is lacking, further abstraction or being inventive in the printing can still bring out the essential.
best,
chris

 

[Doremus Scudder]

thanks for your reply.i guess what you say is spot on. but i do disagree that a visiualized image becomes a bad photograph if the light is not good, too flat or whatever. but then i am hardly going for literal representation in my photography. and where contrast is lacking, further abstraction or being inventive in the printing can still bring out the essential.
best,
chris

Chris,

Don't get me wrong. I shoot a lot in flat lighting, often increasing contrast significantly with development and other controls. I simply meant, if the light is not what you want for a particular image, there is no point in photographing it; revisualize, come back later, or don't take it at all. "Good light" is different for different subjects.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

please dont blur this thread. sofar you havent got my point. which is, of course, not a problem.

maybe i havent been clear enough.... hmmm
tx anyway

You need to be more clear, then...and I did answer your question about increasing agitation. Here's something you can try. Instead of asking what if.... why don't you just go out and try it and see what happens?