rescuing underexposed negative

[BetterSense]

I have a negative that is underexposed. On the light box, in transmission, the negative appears hopelessly thin. However when I hold it up to an oblique light source with a black background, I am able to see a positive image with a good amount of detail. I call this the dark field image. However when I try to print it, I am unable to dig out an image that comes close to the dark field image. This upsets me because the dark field image is quite serviceable. I possibly could scan the negative because I have heard that scanning can extract more detail from underexposed negatives than printing, but I don't see why that should be the case.

Is a diffusion enlarger better than condenser for digging detail out of thin negatives?

Could I copy this negative back to film a couple times? Is chemical intensification an option that will help?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I possibly could scan the negative because I have heard that scanning can extract more detail from underexposed negatives than printing, but I don't see why that should be the case.

Scanning will let you redefine the white point and black point as well as adjust contrast. That's what I'd do, but since you asked a question about it I suspect you might not have the software and/or experience to do it.

In the past I've tried a variety of chemical intensifiers to save such negatives, but never had much luck. Maybe others have had better luck.

If the image is important, get a good scan first in case the intensification process doesn't go well.

 

[BetterSense]

I have a V500 but haven't used it in years and don't even have a desktop computer any more.

What I am getting at is is it really possible to get more detail out of a negative by scanning than enlarging, and is this based on any optical fundamentals? Not asking if scanning is easier...asking if enlarging can match scanning when it comes to underexposure, with the proper heroics, and what would those heroics be?

With enlarging, it seems like you are fighting the paper shoulder while at the same time trying to dig info out of the negative. It seems like there should be a way around that with a copying step.

 

[Xmas]

The dark field image is very low contrast and way difficult to print.
Best to set your meter to half ISO its pre 1961 setting.
It is easy to print overexposed negatives.

 

[BetterSense]

Sometimes there just isn't enough light. And sometimes you thought you had 400 speed film in the camera and it was actually 100...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some very underexposed negatives are not retrievable.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

asking if enlarging can match scanning when it comes to underexposure, with the proper heroics, and what would those heroics be?

Since you need to stick to conventional techniques, I'd recommend you try chemical intensification as a last resort. Perhaps duping with a high contrast film would work - if you can do it, give it a try.

Is this an important negative to you (or someone else) or just one you want to experiment with?

 

[BetterSense]

Both. But mostly I am curious, because this negative is currently a write-off.

 

[RobC]

Both. But mostly I am curious, because this negative is currently a write-off.

All scanning is a destructive process. Your scanner is simply not capable of extracting the finest detail from a negative. A drum scanner would do a better job but a consumer grade scanner such as yours will do a job but not be as good as printing.

However, if the neg contrast is so low that you can't print it to a satifactory contrast then scanning may be your only choice. You can adjust levels and contrast in your editing software if you know how to use it. But if there's no detail in the shadows a scanner can't scan it.

 

[MattKing]

Not surprisingly, when you are talking about negatives that are different from the "norm", scanning is better with some things, and optical printing is better with others.

Intensification works a lot better with underdeveloped negatives than it does with underexposed negatives.

On the analogue front, you may have more success with duplicating the negative, and then printing from the duplicate.

But that, in itself, is quite an art.

Someone with restoration experience would be a good person to discuss this with.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

No matter which approach you take, the results will never look as good a the results would be from a properly exposed negative.

Try the high contrast film duping. If you don't like the results, come back - hopefully DPUG will be linked by then - and if the image is important enough to you, we can discuss the matter further on DPUG.

 

[Bill Burk]

To the question with an obvious answer: A condenser enlarger would give more contrast - which you need at this point.

 

[Xmas]

Sometimes there just isn't enough light. And sometimes you thought you had 400 speed film in the camera and it was actually 100...

Avery labels if camera has not slot for box top.
Live with Tx or HP5+...

push is a right bad four letter word, I do know others

 

[Prof_Pixel]

All scanning is a destructive process.

I wouldn't call it 'destructive' - since it doesn't damage your negative. The better your scanner, the better the quality of your scan.

 

[RobC]

I wouldn't call it 'destructive' - since it doesn't damage your negative. The better your scanner, the better the quality of your scan.

Its destructive in the sense that focus is usually out by a certain amount, the engineering of projecting an image onto the linear sensor misses part of the image, there are small gaps between each pixel captured and then the resulting image is interpolated from the RGB sensors which is usually soft hence the reason to need sharpening which whilst it may make the image look sharper is also a destructive process in the same way that increasing contrast is.
Only with a drum scanner which uses a photo multiplier can you get the finest detail.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Rather than 'destructive', I think the word you want to use is 'lossy' The original film image remains unchanged, it's the digital image that MAY suffer some quality loss thru the process.

I don't want to discuss this further on APUG.

 

[winger]

You say that you haven't gotten a print you like, but you don't say what you've tried. If you could post a picture of what the negative itself looks like (on a light box or bright window, preferably), that might help, too. For awhile, my negs tended towards underexposed because I did a little too much guessing and too little metering. I have managed to get decent prints from many of those negs and I think it's because I worked at it (and maybe a little 'cause I didn't know any better).
So, what have you tried? Can you show what it looks like and the prints you've gotten?

 

[BetterSense]

I just tried printing it with a grade 5 filter.

 

[RobC]

I just tried printing it with a grade 5 filter.

And ?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If there's nothing on the film where you want detail, then there's nothing to recover by any method.

If you want to increase the contrast by bringing up the highlights, then try an intensifier. A strong one is chromium intensifier, which may still be available in packaged form and sounds like what might help.

Selenium toner can get you a bump in the highlights of about one zone, but I use that more for negs that are basically good, but could have used more development.

You could also try something like printing dark and bleaching the print back to normal with potassium ferricyanide, which will affect highlights disproportionately, but there might still be ranges of the print that are muddy.

It's unusual, though, that I find it worth spending time on a bad negative, when I seem to be eternally behind on my printing, and have plenty of good negatives that I could be printing instead.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rather than 'destructive', I think the word you want to use is 'lossy' The original film image remains unchanged, it's the digital image that MAY suffer some quality loss thru the process.

I don't want to discuss this further on APUG.

Lossy is a better technical term.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

All scanning is a destructive process. Your scanner is simply not capable of extracting the finest detail from a negative. A drum scanner would do a better job but a consumer grade scanner such as yours will do a job but not be as good as printing...

This is not correct. Any scanner can be wrangled to achieve the level and depth of detail required for output printing from either negatives or transparencies (I work exclusively with transparencies), and that includes the V500 and V700. It is the skill of the photographer and the end process that determines the quality of the outcome. Commercial equipment is only moderately better, and only then if making very large prints. There are also various tools and techniques for image prep and RIP at the print stage that enhance the quality of the finished print. This is particularly so with with RA-4 prints.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Oh dear!
Someone asks a question about Enlarging and some answer about Scanning.
That's very poor.

 

[gone]

I read somewhere that underexposed negs will break your heart. That has been my experience as well. You can sorta see the image there, but darkroom printing it is quite another thing.

As for scanning and ink jet printing, not many people here give a RIP :]

 

[pdeeh]

If there's nothing on the film where you want detail, then there's nothing to recover by any method.

If you want to increase the contrast by bringing up the highlights, then try an intensifier. A strong one is chromium intensifier, which may still be available in packaged form and sounds like what might help.

Selenium toner can get you a bump in the highlights of about one zone, but I use that more for negs that are basically good, but could have used more development..

Just to note for the OP that Selenium toning should be your LAST port of call - not because it is no good, but because once done it precludes other intensification techniques. Try the bleach/redev techniques first.

But as Mr. G says, you can't get something from nothing ...

Still, I always find this kind of experimentation quite fun - every time I bleach an image to nothing and then watch it come back in the developer, it seems like I've just performed voodoo ...