Urban myth #567 : old BW negs were denser...

Pat Erson · Dec 10, 2008

Hello APUGers,

I've been processing BW films for more than 10 years now and from my experience one of the basic rules for processing them is "don't overdevelop" aka "keep the highlights printable" or "dense negs are a beginner's mistake".

BUT I cannot get out my head the idea that this is a relatively new trend. Old lab guys were developing their negs a tad more than we do now (at the expense of extended burning under the enlarger). For instance I remember reading (in "American Photographer") that Avedon asked his lab guy to process his TRI-X 120 for 14 minutes in D-76 1+1 (EI was 320 or less).

Am I wrong?

Robert Hall · Dec 10, 2008

One thing I like about PMK is that I can kind of cook my negatives and have little trouble printing highlights. I have always tended to over develop for fear of under development. If it's way over it can be fixed -- in my opinion -- easier than under development.

But I suppose one thing I should mention that I routinely use my negs for alt process and generally contrast or un-sharp mask then when printing in silver. This would have some mitigating effect on the overall exposure.

Rlibersky · Dec 10, 2008

It could be due to the types of paper used in the past.

Claire Senft · Dec 10, 2008

Between Rochester & Mobberly. Hmm. Thats over ten miles apart. Could you be more specific?

I can not say what the past practices of others were. For myself, having done this for a short period...45 years...my practices have remained constant.

There are those who tend to develop more than necessary, to achieve more "snap" in the print which makes almost certain that buning be required.

Barry S · Dec 10, 2008

I'm doing some scanning of large format negatives from a photographer in the 30's and 40's and the negatives are dense. I think they were developed to a high density and CI because they were intended for contact printing papers.

bsdunek · Dec 10, 2008

In the late 50's, the word was to make the negatives thinner. As film speeds increased and grain got smaller, that was the way to go. When Tri-X was ASA 200, we liked denser negatives to get the full range of tones. Although Kodak didn't indicate there was any change in the film when they went to 400, it was easier to keep highlight detail, and grain was better.
My Grandmother's negatives from the 20's & 30's are so dense they could be used for welding. Takes a lot of exposure to make a print.

Anscojohn · Dec 10, 2008

bsdunek said:
In the late 50's, the word was to make the negatives thinner. As film speeds increased and grain got smaller, that was the way to go. When Tri-X was ASA 200, we liked denser negatives to get the full range of tones. Although Kodak didn't indicate there was any change in the film when they went to 400, it was easier to keep highlight detail, and grain was better.
My Grandmother's negatives from the 20's & 30's are so dense they could be used for welding. Takes a lot of exposure to make a print.

*******
And what do the prints look like? I'll bet the apearance of substance, depth, and tonality of the prints had a socko look. I printed some 35mm negs shot during WWII and the negs looked, I am sure, like your Granny's. But the prints looked great; unlike so much of the blah stuff I often see nowadays. Of course, I print with a diffusion light source, aka a Beseler color head.

Kirk Keyes · Dec 10, 2008

Thin (i.e. low contrast) negs are a beginner mistake...

ic-racer · Dec 10, 2008

I don't know about other's negatives, but I have been processing my own for 36 years and have been using diffuse light for projection printing the whole time. The early, early stuff is all underexposed (why did we believe that underexposing our Junior High yearbook sports pictures by 2 stops would make them better??). That improved after I read Fred Picker in '75.

Density and contrast of the 'master's' negatives has always fascinated me. Ansel told about his negatives and their density, but he is one of the few. There was an article in one of the 'glossy' bookstore magazines on something like 'Celebration of the Negative' where they had pictures of some famous negatives. As I recall, some were thin and some were dense. Very interesting, should have bought the magazine.

bdial · Dec 10, 2008

An issue of LensWork Extended (not sure which one at the moment) has a tour of Edward Weston's darkroom. Sitting on a lightbox is the neg for Pepper #30. As I recall, it doesn't look especially dense. Though with so many dark tones in the print, one wouldn't expect it to be dense.

FWIW, Long ago, I was told you should be able to read a newspaper through your neg. That is, only the densest highlights should obscure the text and then only in occasional places.

Mark Antony · Dec 10, 2008

I think in the 1930's it was common practise to 'develop to finality' that is all films were given the same time, one which would make the exposed grains wholly develop.
As smaller formats became popular so did the fine grain low alkaline developers based on Metol, I think it is now un-common to develop to finality but to over expose and under develop for finer grain and lower contrast.
One possibility is that 1930's photographers had un coated lenses lower contrast, and larger formats so grain would be less of an issue.
Just an opinion

nickandre · Dec 10, 2008

Having seen the effect of underexposed color negative film I always overexpose. I accidentally shot a roll of HP-5 at 100 asa and pulled it not enough. The result was interesting; at the time I was just annoyed that the contrast was different than all my regularly exposed negs.

df cardwell · Dec 10, 2008

"it was common practise to 'develop to finality'"

No, it was a technique amongst some pictorialists. It wasn't 'common'.

RE Avedon's negs, the time is meaningless. Was it a lab that used replenishment ?
How often was the film agitated ? Most importantly, the time is only pertinent to Avedon's technique.
His negs didn't have to be 'dense'.

Besides, what do we mean by dense ? A dense neg can be either contrasty, flat, or normal.
It is one of those photo words that really doesn't mean anything on its own.

gainer · Dec 10, 2008

Don't forget that the old ASA film speeds had a considerably greater shadow cushion than ISO and a different method of determining the speed point. If you used average or incident light readings and developed to a contrast suitable for printing on grade 2 paper, the negatives were somewhat more dense than would be the same film at its ISO speed and the same exposure and development techinique.

Mark Antony · Dec 11, 2008

>No, it was a technique amongst some pictorialists. It wasn't 'common'.
When I started developing in the 70's i was told by an older chap who'd been working at a Lab for nearly 40 years that most labs in the 1930s developed to finality.
He stated that it was unusual to have a development time for any given film they were all developed to completion.
most Labs worked like that until small formats came in- those were his words (he's dead now so i can't ask)
Just passing on what I've been told

PhotoHistorian · Dec 11, 2008

bdial said:
An issue of LensWork Extended (not sure which one at the moment) has a tour of Edward Weston's darkroom. Sitting on a lightbox is the neg for Pepper #30. As I recall, it doesn't look especially dense. Though with so many dark tones in the print, one wouldn't expect it to be dense.

FWIW, Long ago, I was told you should be able to read a newspaper through your neg. That is, only the densest highlights should obscure the text and then only in occasional places.

The negative of Pepper No. 30 on the retouching stand in Edward's darkroom on Wildcat Hill is a copy negative and not the original. I have handled the original and it too is not dense but a little more than the copy you refered to. Having reserached a good many of Edward's negatives, few would I consider overly dense. You have to remember he developed by inspection in pyro and could control the density he needed to produce the print he was seeking.

John Lawrence · Dec 11, 2008

With regard to thinner negatives - some of the old magazines and pros in the olden days actually recommended doubling the box speed of film. Apparently the reason for this was that most films of the time were rated about half the speed of what they actually were as a "safety margin" to ensure users at least got something out. However, I believe film manufacturers in the UK and USA discontinued this practice in the early 1960s.

eddie gunks · Dec 11, 2008

would it be safe to say you can get contrast in a thin or dense negative? i did not think exposure had an effect on contrast! i thought it was a lighting/dev3eloping thing......

weasel · Dec 11, 2008

I don't know how far back you are going when you talk of older negatives being denser, but there may be some truth to it. I remember in the late sixties working with my grandfather on some family pictures. He shot them with an 8x10, uncoated lens, no shutter. He just pulled the lens cap off for a bit and put it back on. His enlarger was a 16x24 view camera on a cast iron rail, the light source being two big arc lamps aimed through the ground glass.
He developed his negatives by hanging them in a developing tank overnight. I have no idea what the developer was, but I never saw him change it out, or pay the slightest mind to its temperature; it looked like thick coffee.
His negatives were dense, a bit contrasty, but printed well on his set up. I think a lot of the density was overall fog.
At the time I remember being appalled at how apparently random his whole process was, but in hindsight I wish I had paid more attention.

df cardwell · Dec 11, 2008

Mark Antony said:
>... i was told by an older chap who'd been working at a Lab for nearly 40 years that most labs in the 1930s developed to finality...

Maybe we should allow for as a great diversity in technique in by gone days, as we have now. The neg and plates of my first teachers, in the '60s, went back to 1900~1910, they were as delicate and fine as you could hope for.

There were labs, and there were labs. In the back of a newspaper,
the boiling vat of pyro had to get a printable image made under sketchy conditions, and there wasn't much concern about quality, beyond the essential "NOW".

But in portrait studios working under north light, and therefore consistent exposure, the work tended to be controlled and fine.

Even outdoors, delicacy was possible. In a 1916 article for The Photo Miniature, Edw. Weston explained his technique of Garden Portraiture. He waited until the sun was not shining directly on his subject, used the lens at maximum aperture, and "...held the the shutter open until he sensed the subject was about to move".

This worked out to be from 1/2 second to 5 seconds, and accounting for reciprocity failure, was pretty darned consistent ! He developed in Pyro, the way he was taught in school, using inspection. The result as consistently and eminently printable.

Of all the negatives I printed for folk over the years, and I mean professionals, the old negs were as good as you would want for your self. It was the new stuff that tended to be rubbish !

d

Pat Erson · Dec 12, 2008

"Of all the negatives I printed for folk over the years, and I mean professionals, the old negs were as good as you would want for your self. It was the new stuff that tended to be rubbish !"

Oh really?
Would you mind telling us more...?

Larry Bullis · Dec 12, 2008

df cardwell said:
Besides, what do we mean by dense ? A dense neg can be either contrasty, flat, or normal.
It is one of those photo words that really doesn't mean anything on its own.

I prefer the more precise term: "Bulletproof"

df cardwell · Dec 12, 2008

Pat Erson said:
"Of all the negatives I printed for folk over the years, and I mean professionals, the old negs were as good as you would want for your self. It was the new stuff that tended to be rubbish !"

Oh really?
Would you mind telling us more...?

It's simple. You're a working pro,
and shoot every day, you've learned your craft, and you do good consistent work. You usually do what your lab tells you to do. Easy as that. It isn't like craftsmanship was invented with the internet !

The problems were/are the guys that 'have vison' but never troubled to learn the craft. If you buy a piano, you own a piano; buy a camera, you're a photographer. THAT is the problem. Well, not anymore, because they all went digital.

All we need to remember now is that the old timers figured all this out before we were born.

Larry Bullis · Dec 12, 2008

Pat Erson said:
... Avedon asked his lab guy to process his TRI-X 120 for 14 minutes in D-76 1+1 (EI was 320 or less).

Avedon didn't sculpt form with light. If you look at his portraits, the light is very flat even though the image may be brilliant. I have read descriptions of his "aesthetic" -- didn't care about light, I'm sure the Zone Zystem was remote to his thinking. Things that many of us assume are important to photographers very well may not be to some.

I once lost a client to Avedon. It's not fun to lose a client, but I took that one as a sort of a complement, or validation. The client has become a very good friend, and I asked him what it was like working with Avedon. He told me that humans were used as light stands, each with a Norman 200B. He'd tell them where to stand.

In using that kind of flat light, he didn't have to cope with shadows. No placement of zone 3 or zone 4, because there was none that could be measured meaningfully. This gave him the opportunity to use somewhat extended development to give the image a bit more punch.

Of course, I'm not privy to his methods, and I'm analyzing from a long distance, but if I wanted to do portraits that looked like his, that is exactly what I would do.

Larry

df cardwell · Dec 12, 2008

Bowz- yep

Which painting inspired Avedon, which Ansel ?
What do the negatives look like ?

Dead Link Removed

.

Urban myth #567 : old BW negs were denser...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency