Thin negs, now what?

Marco B · May 27, 2009

Hi all,

Just f**ked up two rolls during developing

The negs are really thin. I have been making contact sheets to see if some can still be printed. Although, looking at those results, I am pretty sure I can save a few by printing at grade 4.5 or split 0/5 with strong emphasis on grade 5, I still could use some further advice.

E.g.:
- Is there any sense in leaving FB prints longer than the normal development time in the developer to squeeze out just that little bit extra contrast and get good black while using short exposures to save shadows? I don't want to use seleniumtoner, as they form part of a series that only used partial sepia toning.

- I think I have read also about selenium toning negatives, instead of prints, to get some more contrast in them. However, I have never done this before, and I am slightly wary of this. Especially since I have seen selenium toner (at least apparently) bleach out thin highlights while toning prints. With overall higher contrast caused by selenium, I might actually be losing valuable shadow detail? :confused:

Anyone who can give advice or share his experiences?

- Any other advice to make the most of very thin negs?

Marco

Anscojohn · May 27, 2009

Does Eastman still make Chromium Intensifier? If so,and if it is a problem with underdevelopment, that is the way I would go.

Marco B · May 27, 2009

Anscojohn said:
Does Eastman still make Chromium Intensifier? If so,and if it is a problem with underdevelopment, that is the way I would go.

John, I see on the internet that Chromium Intensifier is just a Potassium Bichromate bleach, that needs to be followed by redeveloping in paper developer.

Is the same intensifying effect possible using a Potassium Ferricyanide based bleach & redeveloping (since I have that bleach readily available from my two bath sepia toner).

Or is the intensifying effect only good with a Potassium Bichromate based bleach, like Chromium Intensifier :confused:

Marco

pgomena · May 27, 2009

Check the Photographers Formulary for chromium intensifier. It is more than redeveloping in paper developer.

You might also bleach/redevelop with a pyro developer.

Selenium intensification is good for negatives that are well exposed but underdeveloped or just plain flat. Try a test neg in selenium toner diluted 1:3 for about 10 minutes.

Good luck!

Peter Gomena

Nicholas Lindan · May 27, 2009

pgomena said:
You might also bleach/redevelop with a pyro developer.

There was an article on this in an issue of Photo Techniques magazine sometimes in the past few years.

The bleach redevelop process in pyro can be carried out multiple times; each time more stain is added to the negative.

If the images are important you may want to scan them, fix them in PS and if the results are good have silver negatives made from the digital files with a film recorder. Scanning them first may be a good insurance policy in case the intensification process goes bloohey.

dancqu · May 27, 2009

Marco B said:
The negs are really thin. ... strong emphasis on grade 5,
...the normal development time in the developer ...

Thin but with shadow detail. Low contrast, thick or thin,
is usually countered by the use of a higher contrast
paper and/or developer.

My suggestion; give Slavich Grade 4 a try. It may just
make Grade 6. I've tested their Grade 2 and it made
Grade 4. If you home brew try Beer's 7 for more
contrast.

Beyond normal development times will up the contrast.
Adjust exposure accordingly. Dan

Guillaume Zuili · May 27, 2009

Selenium for the film then Slavich 4
G.

el wacho · May 28, 2009

i've heard of this technique where you bleach the negs and redevelop with a sepia toner. the reddish tone adds contrast. also using a condenser enlarger without diffusion should increase contrast.... hmmm hope it works out!

Marco B · May 28, 2009

Thanks all so far for the suggestions.

I have gone ahead and tried selenium toning on a few of the less important negatives, because that is what I have immediately available. Although I did witness a visible increase in overall contrast, I also noticed the thing I feared would happen: a visible loss of some of the shadow detail. This is the same thing I have seen happening in prints, where thin highlights show bleaching when selenium toning.

So, although seleniumtoning can help with making some negatives better printable, I am not sure if it is good general measure and advice for all negatives, the suggested Chromium Intensifier and Pyro stainers might be a better way.

el wacho said:
i've heard of this technique where you bleach the negs and redevelop with a sepia toner. the reddish tone adds contrast. also using a condenser enlarger without diffusion should increase contrast.... hmmm hope it works out!

This is another thing I have been considering, but I had no idea what the influence of the sepia tone would be on contrast printing on VC papers. Now you suggest it will increase contrast, I might give it a try with some test negatives later on.

I am using a condenser enlarger.

Marco

2F/2F · May 28, 2009

I would try chromium intensifier and see what happens. I have been told (on this very Website) that you can then use selenium on top of that, though I have not yet verified this myself.

However, always get the best print you can before doing any process that may cause damage (and I also suggest a quality negative scan in addition).

There is also another option. Make a print that shows whatever detail that you have on the negative, even if this is a flat print. You want a print that does not lose any information from the neg. It will look somewhat like a platinum print tonally speaking. Then photograph that print on a copy stand with an ortho film. Use exposure and development to try to achieve more contrast. I have rescued a print this way before, and I was surprised how well it worked.

Alternately, you can scan, tweak to add some density and a grade of contrast or so, and output to film via a film recorder...then you can use development to increase contrast of the film exposed by the film recorder (as well as selenium).

But for now, make two prints. One that is as close as you can get to what you want for the final print (for display, if things don't go well with the intensification), and another that is flat and ugly, yet contains whatever "information" is there on the neg (for copying).

Ian Grant · May 28, 2009

Chromium Intensifier then re-develop in strong Pyrocat HD or a similar staining developer, you can repeat this 2 or 3 times but you need to wash very ell between the re-development and re-bleaching.

It works very well I rescued some negatives this way last month. It need dichhromate because the Chromium leaves a stain, plus you get more stain from the developer. The stains work fine with VC papers.

Ian

jp80874 · May 28, 2009

Is the subject a once in a life time event or can you reshoot giving more and possibly bracketed exposure so you can work with a decent negative?

John Powers

Joe Lipka · May 28, 2009

What John Powers said.

There is no cure for underexposure except rephotographing. If there is no information in the shadow areas, no amount of negative intensification will salvage the negatives. The only thing you will be doing with intensification is make your highlights more dense with little help for the areas that have no detail. In effect, you will be heading for a more contrasty negative.

Spend the time rephotographing and not doing the dip and dunk with chemicals.

Ian Grant · May 28, 2009

Joe Lipka said:
What John Powers said.

There is no cure for underexposure except rephotographing.

We'd agree there, but you can sometimes rescue under-developed negatives and get excellent prints from the intensified negatives.

Ian

2F/2F · May 28, 2009

Joe Lipka said:
What John Powers said.

There is no cure for underexposure except rephotographing. If there is no information in the shadow areas, no amount of negative intensification will salvage the negatives. The only thing you will be doing with intensification is make your highlights more dense with little help for the areas that have no detail. In effect, you will be heading for a more contrasty negative.

Spend the time rephotographing and not doing the dip and dunk with chemicals.

Most things that make what I consider to be the best photos cannot be rephotographed, however. Perhaps it is silly of me, but I assumed that since the question was asked in the first place, that these specific negs need to be salvaged. Also, the OP stated that it was the development that messed up his negs, right, not exposure? If so, his shadows are right where he wanted them to be, and he *needs* to add contrast...That is the whole point, right? So why would adding contrast be a bad thing? Also, I am sick of the idea that "shadow detail" is the be all and end all of a good print. Most of my favorite prints by myself and others have crap for detail in the shadows. I find commonly-accepted levels of shadow detail to often look formulaic and distracting, personally.

Marco B · May 29, 2009

Hi all,

Thanks for all the info so far.

Actually, I luckily had bracketed part of the shots (the night time, long exposures that were the most important ones on these rolls). The shots with the maximum over-exposure, although still thin, did seem potentially printable, so I now have given it a try to print some. These negatives did display a pretty full range of detail from shadow to hightlights, but just compressed.

I must say I am not dissatisfied. I still need to do some more work, but with split grade 0 / 5 printing, and some dodging, I have managed to get some pretty decent prints, and the prints of one of the three of the negatives I have been working on are simply good.

So, although I still will look out for some chromium intensifier, possibly in combination with a pyro staining developer, things may not be as bad as I initially thought. I do appreciate all the comments though, and if I can find stuff here in the Netherlands, I think I will do some experimenting with intensifying. I am always interested to learn new techniques, even if it is "just-in-case" if I will need them...

Marco

psvensson · May 29, 2009

Marco, you could try (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

removed account4 · May 29, 2009

Guillaume Zuili said:
Selenium for the film then Slavich 4
G.

what he said

dancqu · May 30, 2009

Guillaume Zuili said:
Selenium for the film then Slavich 4 G.

Well, that is a second for my just previous post.
I think though he should go with the Slavich first.
Grade 5 should be easy if my tests carry forward
from the Very contrasty Grade 2 I've tested. Dan

Thin negs, now what?

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency