Underexposed or underdeveloped?

ericdan said:

Are the Tri-X negatives below underexposed?

Click to expand...

The middle neg of the Kodak actually looks most printable to me. The HP5 stuff is pretty crispy, probably over cooked.

LAG said:

Does anyone here in APUG care about the negative? or is it the Printing the center of the World?

Click to expand...

Every one who cares about the print cares about the negative.
But.... the absolute best test of the quality of a negative is how it displays using the mode of presentation that the photographer chooses.
The most demanding mode of presentation - the mode of presentation that is most likely to reveal problems with the quality of negative - is the traditional darkroom print.
The most demanding mode of presentation for "positive" materials is the projected slide.
That is not to say that other types of presentation aren't benefited by different types of negatives. For example, those who contact print using so called traditional or alternative processes like Cyanotypes often require much higher contrast than what is ideal for darkroom prints.
Internet distribution or display on a monitor is, relatively speaking, an undemanding test of a negative's quality. In addition, the availability of extremely robust but often inadvertently automatic digital post processing tools tends to confound any examination of negative quality.
All of which leads me and others to test the quality (and qualities) of our negatives by printing them.
If it is any consolation, a negative that prints well in a darkroom will generally scan well and therefore be eminently usable if you use digital modes of presentation.

ericdan said:

The above negs were an attempt to see if I need to expose the film differently. I set the meter to 400 and shot, 0, +1, +2, -1, -2.

Click to expand...

great way of testing your film and developer !
have you shot a whole roll yet with the iso you prefer with the development time you prefer?
i agree with others about edge markings they can be false advertising ...
good luck with your prints and your next bunch of exposures !

LAG said:

Does anyone here in APUG care about the negative? or is it the Printing the center of the World?

Click to expand...

You'll find that those making the better images are more concered abot the negative it's the key to high quality prints (or scans.

Ian

My experience from years ago supports Matt King's comments on edge numbers.

I admit that, when I first saw this post, I thought it was a bit cheeky...I thought the OP was trying to draw someone in as a challenge.

I believe the OP was asking if the images on two separate films ( shot simultaneously? Same camera? Tripod?) were exemplary of overexposure or overdevelopment.

The OP seemed to be asking this while supplying no data on either exposure or development. I thought that this was a bit outside of a reasonable demand.

We could see the films (some of us may know the characteristics of the films the OP chose when exposed in a familiar camera and processed in chemistry that we choose to use when using those films) and, I confess, it appeared to me that the OP had three exposures at the beginning of each film roll. There seemed to be an order (sequence) of increasing density through each set of images. The subsequent images...outside of frame... seemed to be less dense.

I admit that I was looking for the most "printable" negative; as other contributors have, as well. I believe I was trained to look for that.

My own experience has been on the production line of a chemical manufacturer. We supplied chemistry that was engineered to specification. It was incumbent on me, as the mixer of each batch, to test films (Tri-X was the test material for a batch of film chemistry) regularly with the chemistry; to ensure consistent results and to publish recommendations for an average user.

It was quite normal for me to engage in the same sequence that the OP seemed to be working. -1, Normal, +1, push, pull, 35mm, 120, 4 x 5...I never took it to anything over 4 x 5 as I figured that specification was in the realm of those who were captains of their own destiny.

My own experience suggests gentle overexposure in combination with mild underdevelopment might be the best avenue to an easily printable negative. This ideal may best be realized through thorough testing with the camera, a chosen film and a developer that is known to whoever is in pursuit of these ideals. My opinions on this may be out of date.

I will state that I saw the first Kodak negative (in the OP's submitted images) as the most printable negative of all that the OP presented. All the others seemed to be too dense for easy printing...what do I know?

I will also state that that the registration numbers on the film that should print out regardless of exposure have been used as the "canary in the coal mine" for so long that we can't ignore what they provide. Having said that, I would have embarrassed myself in opining that the developed out density of the numbers on the Kodak film might indicate underdevelopment. I am not currently aware at high enough levels of practice to be assertive but I dislike being deferential in matters that I once knew quite well.

I hope the OP has taken in what the membership has given as there have been good posts subsequent to what I feel was a thin appeal.

If there was any issue of either exposure or development...the OP should sort it out through testing and verification with the hardware, film and chemistry of choice.

I apologize, in advance, if I am off base or sound abrupt. I wish the OP good luck (I checked to your site and LOVE the images), Tim.

MattKing said:

Every one who cares about the print cares about the negative.
But.... the absolute best test of the quality of a negative is how it displays using the mode of presentation that the photographer chooses.
The most demanding mode of presentation - the mode of presentation that is most likely to reveal problems with the quality of negative - is the traditional darkroom print.
The most demanding mode of presentation for "positive" materials is the projected slide.
That is not to say that other types of presentation aren't benefited by different types of negatives. For example, those who contact print using so called traditional or alternative processes like Cyanotypes often require much higher contrast than what is ideal for darkroom prints.
Internet distribution or display on a monitor is, relatively speaking, an undemanding test of a negative's quality. In addition, the availability of extremely robust but often inadvertently automatic digital post processing tools tends to confound any examination of negative quality.
All of which leads me and others to test the quality (and qualities) of our negatives by printing them.
If it is any consolation, a negative that prints well in a darkroom will generally scan well and therefore be eminently usable if you use digital modes of presentation.

Click to expand...

Excuse me MattKing

First, thanks for your answer. But... Sorry to say that I was not referring to that particular point of view, the relation between both steps (negative/print), no. I was talking about being careful with the first step, in the very first place, just like you use a developer first instead of the fixer. Simple as that, that's the importance, the sequence of a "normal" quality (It's hard for me to find some technical words when writing, but I hope you understand this time). In fact, this thread is a another clear example of what I am trying to say. In the end "to each his own"

Ian Grant said:

You'll find that those making the better images are more concered abot the negative it's the key to high quality prints (or scans.

Ian

Click to expand...

Excuse me Ian

I will say the same to you that I said to Mr MattKing, thanks for your answer. But ... until now, I have another impression of that, my bad!? I can´t wait to read those. About the key: precisely!, that's what I am talking about. (I can appreciate some spelling errors on your message)

timmct said:

...The OP seemed to be asking this while supplying no data on either exposure or development. I thought that this was a bit outside of a reasonable demand....

Click to expand...

I agree, and I've also said that before! (see #17)

timmct said:

...My own experience suggests gentle overexposure in combination with mild underdevelopment might be the best avenue to an easily printable negative. This ideal may best be realized through thorough testing with the camera, a chosen film and a developer that is known to whoever is in pursuit of these ideals. My opinions on this may be out of date.

Click to expand...

Out of date? I don´t think (& believe in) so!

timmct said:

I will state that I saw the first Kodak negative (in the OP's submitted images) as the most printable negative of all that the OP presented. All the others seemed to be too dense for easy printing...what do I know?...

Click to expand...

Though you can fix both "over & under" developed negatives, either with specific chemicals or papers, first the "negative" & second the "print" (...) will accept more willingly an overdeveloped one.