Teach me how to read a negative

[Gerald C Koch]

It's very difficult for an inexperienced person to tell the difference between an under-exposed negative and an under-developed one. The same difficulty exists for an over-exposed one and an over-developed one. Many books on photography show a 3X3 matrix of negatives. They range from the upper left one which is under-exposed and under developed to the lower right one which is over-exposed and over-developed. Only the negative in the middle is correctly exposed and developed. The knack is not easily taught with words. See if you can find such an illustration and sturdy it well.

 

[MattKing]

I'm back ....

I'll agree with Doremus that it is okay to tailor your development for your workflow, but I would add the following.

When you are making exposure and development decisions you are choosing within a range of workable options, which result in a range of possible results.

In most cases, it is easy to obtain negatives that will both scan well and print well in the darkroom.

And it is always a good idea to aim for a negative that allows you to make good scans or prints with a number of different contrasts - i.e. you want to be able to make a choice to either decrease or increase the contrast in your final result.

It looks to me like your negative is low in contrast - that tends to restrict your scanning/printing options.

And as for the newspaper test, as others have observed, you do that using ambient, reflected light.

Neither of your example negatives appear thick enough to block reading newspaper text through them.

The second negative looks better to me, but the scan of it doesn't show as well - I think that is an issue with the scanning settings.

And I agree with jnanian - they are nice shots.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm back ....

I'll agree with Doremus that it is okay to tailor your development for your workflow, but I would add the following.

When you are making exposure and development decisions you are choosing within a range of workable options, which result in a range of possible results.

In most cases, it is easy to obtain negatives that will both scan well and print well in the darkroom.

And it is always a good idea to aim for a negative that allows you to make good scans or prints with a number of different contrasts - i.e. you want to be able to make a choice to either decrease or increase the contrast in your final result.

It looks to me like your negative is low in contrast - that tends to restrict your scanning/printing options.

And as for the newspaper test, as others have observed, you do that using ambient, reflected light.

Neither of your example negatives appear thick enough to block reading newspaper text through them.

The second negative looks better to me, but the scan of it doesn't show as well - I think that is an issue with the scanning settings.

And I agree with jnanian - they are nice shots.

Wait so to clarify, it looks as if the OPD took a picture of the film with the newspaper on top of a lightbox, which would not be ambient light, so you're saying that you shouldn't put it on a lightbox and instead should just have it on a non lit surface and try to view the image through the negative?

This is not newsprint, however it's text which I think is good enough? In this example, the legs of the subject, are those overexpose because you can't easily read the text? or would this be proper exposure because you can just faintly read the text? Just clarifying...

 

[markbarendt]

The holding tray of the scanner hides the edges, hence can't see the numbers on the negative.

Cheers

Raffay

Yeah, but you can see them in person.

 

[markbarendt]

Hi,

Here is another shot, same place/time. Exposed a little more and developed for three more minutes. The new neg on the left seems more dense to me.
View attachment 77040

Here is the histogram:
View attachment 77041

Final scan:
View attachment 77042

The focus is quite out, and there is a lot of dust, not sure how to control it.

Cheers

Raffay

Google how to read histogram, that should get you some info.

A loupe, reading glasses, or a magnifying glass can help with focus.

Keeping the dust out is a matter of doing things like loading and unloading film in dust free areas, making sure the holders are perfectly clean, keeping the camera free of dust, and things like that. I just loaded holders this morning and slipped them into clean plastic bags so that they stay clean until I put them in the camera.

 

[StoneNYC]

Google how to read histogram, that should get you some info.

A loupe, reading glasses, or a magnifying glass can help with focus.

Keeping the dust out is a matter of doing things like loading and unloading film in dust free areas, making sure the holders are perfectly clean, keeping the camera free of dust, and things like that. I just loaded holders this morning and slipped them into clean plastic bags so that they stay clean until I put them in the camera.

Get a can of electronics duster air, it really makes a difference, just go easy and don't shake it or the liquid (freon?) comes out.

 

[adelorenzo]

A milky or foggy negative can be because it's not been fixed enough. I've had this problem before. If you think this might be the case, try re-fixing and re-washing a piece of the film in fresh fixer and see if it makes any difference.

 

[markbarendt]

Get a can of electronics duster air, it really makes a difference, just go easy and don't shake it or the liquid (freon?) comes out.

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...vptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6kr9e72lg1_e

 

[StoneNYC]

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...vptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6kr9e72lg1_e

Hey Mark, I know that some people say that those are good enough, but I seen a significant difference between the two, those blowers don't do anything as good as the cans of air... In my opinion of course...

 

[markbarendt]

Hey Mark, I know that some people say that those are good enough, but I seen a significant difference between the two, those blowers don't do anything as good as the cans of air... In my opinion of course...

Depends on how dirty they are to start.

 

[MattKing]

Wait so to clarify, it looks as if the OPD took a picture of the film with the newspaper on top of a lightbox, which would not be ambient light, so you're saying that you shouldn't put it on a lightbox and instead should just have it on a non lit surface and try to view the image through the negative?

This is not newsprint, however it's text which I think is good enough? In this example, the legs of the subject, are those overexpose because you can't easily read the text? or would this be proper exposure because you can just faintly read the text? Just clarifying...

View attachment 77043

Stone:

You are probably doing it right here. My only caveat is that the reason newspapers are/were prescribed for the test is that the text wasn't as dark and the paper wasn't as bright as one would find in some books. In other words, the test was designed with a relatively low contrast target.

And as for the negative itself:

1) it figures that you need to assess negatives with lots of women's legs in them ;
2) with a little bit of work, you can read text through the dense area of the negative, so if it isn't right, at least it isn't far wrong;
3) if the representation on my screen is accurate, I would probably reduce development a bit. But that may be a matter of preference, rather than requirement.

I've posted this link before, and the important table in it isn't perfect, but it does organize the information well: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

You are probably doing it right here. My only caveat is that the reason newspapers are/were prescribed for the test is that the text wasn't as dark and the paper wasn't as bright as one would find in some books. In other words, the test was designed with a relatively low contrast target.

And as for the negative itself:

1) it figures that you need to assess negatives with lots of women's legs in them ;
2) with a little bit of work, you can read text through the dense area of the negative, so if it isn't right, at least it isn't far wrong;
3) if the representation on my screen is accurate, I would probably reduce development a bit. But that may be a matter of preference, rather than requirement.

I've posted this link before, and the important table in it isn't perfect, but it does organize the information well: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682

Of course

Though I promised the model not to show the top half, it's a little more "showey" lol.

It also shouldn't surprise you that I didn't fully read that article, but I saved the picture to my phone, as a reference point it's really nice! I hope the OP can use it as well.

And I actually figured as much when it comes to newspaper print that the papers a little yellower, and the print is a little thinner, and wouldn't be quite as contrasty as regular book print, but I was too lazy to walk downstairs to get a newspaper