VC paper vs. N+, N-

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 3, 2006

I picked up a good book about Zone system and sensitometry recently, and it did a good job of explaining how paper curves relate to film curves, how to calculate contrast index, etc etc. But it left open in my mind a big gaping question: for all practical purposes, why would one want to alter N development to expand/contract contrast when VC paper exist? The only hint of an answer I have found is from an article by Paul Butzi: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

From what I have read so far, even high-contrast scenes won't necessarily shoulder on modern film emulsions. So it means that we are working with only the straight line portion of the H&D curve. Paper, on the other hand, has a much narrower range of acceptable densities, and is the limiting factor on highlight/shadow details. But is it so limiting than even a 00 grade, or Azo would not hold a high-contrast negative?

So why would one want to reduce development, instead of working with 00 (-1) grade filtration? Don't worry, I expected to take a serious beating here.

Roger Hicks · Jul 3, 2006

You may well ask. Some serious sensitometrists (who are also good photographers) would agree with you. But I'd put on the armour anyway, 'cos you'll need it.

Cheers,

Roger (you might also care to look at 'Why we do not use the Zone System' in the Photo School at www.rogeranandfrances.com -- and now I'll get the blows too...)

MurrayMinchin · Jul 3, 2006

Yup...this could generate some heat alright

To my mind it's so much easier to control tricky dodging and burning sequences at around grade 2 than it is at the higher grades. Also, if my negatives are closer to the middle of the playing field it allows for greater creative control, instead of trying to find some wiggle room near the sidelines. Not using roll, but sheet film helps in this regard.

Murray

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 3, 2006

Yes, there are negs that won't print well on Azo or VC grade 00. I produce them intentionally sometimes, because they make good albumen prints.

For me the main issue is flexibility. If my negs are targeted to grade 2 or 3, I have more choices when printing.

If you're shooting 35mm, though, it might make more sense just to underdevelop a bit, target for grade 3 in general, and use paper grade or VC filters to adjust contrast, because N+ development will increase grain.

Run some comparison tests and decide for yourself. Shoot a scene in flat light, give one neg normal development and do a few with varying degrees of extended development. Print the N neg to the desired contrast using VC filters, and see which of the N+ negs prints to the desired contrast on grade 2 or thereabouts. Then you can see which approch gives you the look you're after. You might find that the correct N+ neg has a richer tonality, but the N neg has better grain, and your choice may depend on format, and the film you're shooting.

Roger Hicks · Jul 3, 2006

Both Murray and David are spot on, of course, but the point is that as long as your average negs print on 2-3, you need to be a long way from average to be outside the range of VC, as you say.

For years I've used what I call 15/50, which is 15 per cent underdevelopment for negs exposed wholly or for the most part under contrasty lighting (eg Greek sun) and 50 per cent overdevelopment for those exposed wholly or for the most part under flat, dull lighting (eg Scotland most of the time). And if it's too mixed on one roll -- then it's average development and let the VC paper take up the slack.

Cheers,

Roger

RalphLambrecht · Jul 3, 2006

Michel

As others have already verified, using MC papers is very similar (not the same) to adjusting film contrast with development, but it leaves less room to manipulate the final image with paper contrast. I develop my film for grade 2 paper, and I still use grade 0 and grade 5 to fine-tune local image tones.

In addition, the Zone System is not just about film development. The concept of visualization alone is still worthwhile using it, even with MC papers at hand.

sanking · Jul 3, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
Michel

As others have already verified, using MC papers is very similar (not the same) to adjusting film contrast with development, but it leaves less room to manipulate the final image with paper contrast. I develop my film for grade 2 paper, and I still use grade 0 and grade 5 to fine-tune local image tones.

In addition, the Zone System is not just about film development. The concept of visualization alone is still worthwhile using it, even with MC papers at hand.

I am an alternative printer (carbon primarily, but also kallitype and Pt./Pd.) and don't print much with VC silver papers. However, I don't believe my logic in exposing and developing is much different from that of Roger and Ralph. With the processes I use it is possible to exercise considerable control of contrast, more or less according to process. However, in my opinion there is much to recommend exercising very good exposure and develoment controls so that the negatives wind up in the middle of the range of the area that we can control, if for no other reason to give some flexibility on both sides for possible errors of interpretation or execution. And believe it or not, these type of errors can happen with the best of photographers.

My theory is that photographers should always work to the best precision that makes practical sense.

Sandy

Roger Hicks · Jul 3, 2006

sanking said:
My theory is that photographers should always work to the best precision that makes practical sense. Sandy

The perfect summary, Sandy! You can overdo it as well and underdoing it!

Cheers,

R.

Stephen Benskin · Jul 3, 2006

mhv said:
So why would one want to reduce development, instead of working with 00 (-1) grade filtration?

One word - Local Con
Two words - Local Contrast
(nod to Monty Python)

Extending or reducing contrast has a different effect than printing on a higher or lower grade of paper. Processing mostly has an effect on the highlights. Paper grades change the local contrast. I find it best to use them in conjunction.

Let's say you have a contrasty scene and decide to process normal and use a lower grade of paper. While you hold all the tones from the shadows to the highlights, the print looks weak. You've reduced the local contrast of the midtones too much. Reducing development will cut back on the highlight so you can make a print on a grade that will produce good midtone separation. What Roger says about a slight under development can really help in with the separation of the midtones. It allows for a slightly higher grade of paper which can make the image pop without having to fight the highlights.

According to tone reproduction theory, the production of midtone contrast must be greater than the original scene for the print to be perceived as excellent.

Donald Miller · Jul 3, 2006

Stephen Benskin said:
One word - Local Con
Two words - Local Contrast
(nod to Monty Python)

Extending or reducing contrast has a different effect than printing on a higher or lower grade of paper. Processing mostly has an effect on the highlights. Paper grades change the local contrast. I find it best to use them in conjunction.

Let's say you have a contrasty scene and decide to process normal and use a lower grade of paper. While you hold all the tones from the shadows to the highlights, the print looks weak. You've reduced the local contrast of the midtones too much. Reducing development will cut back on the highlight so you can make a print on a grade that will produce good midtone separation. What Roger says about a slight under development can really help in with the separation of the midtones. It allows for a slightly higher grade of paper which can make the image pop without having to fight the highlights.

According to tone reproduction theory, the production of midtone contrast must be greater than the original scene for the print to be perceived as excellent.

I am, more and more, basing my exposure and development considerations on local contrast then I am on overall contrast.

As an aid to determining what I want to do when making an exposure, I evaluate the percentage of the image that represents the extremes in overall contrast. If the percentages of either highlight or shadow is minimal, I will err on the side of over development.

In my experience, local contrast is vitally important and I tend to give it greater weight then I do to overall contrast.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 3, 2006

Stephen Benskin said:
You've reduced the local contrast of the midtones too much. Reducing development will cut back on the highlight so you can make a print on a grade that will produce good midtone separation.

Aha! That's I was looking for! I was wondering indeed why prints often look dull on low grades, even though a low grade is needed to fit a long-scale negative without excessive dodge/burn.

As Murray, David, and Roger rightly pointed out, the practical considerations of having creative elbow space of a few grades either way matter more than the theoretical "fitting the negative curve onto the paper curve" consideration.

Sandy's comment is also a reminder that one should try to squeeze all they can from a negative; it may be a safeguard to always overexpose by one stop to keep shadow detail, but that also means that you're consistently losing one stop you could use to arrest blur.

All in all very helpful comments. There's nothing that I hate more than a question that is sidestepped, and you guys have stepped on it quite adroitly.

Allen Friday · Jul 3, 2006

Hi MHV,

I think you have gotten some very insightful responses.

I would throw out one additional consideration, that of consistency from one print to the next. For individual photographs which are created to stand alone, the consistency from one print to the next is probably not much of an issue. It becomes more of an issue when one starts to combine photographs into a portfolio. I think it becomes very important when you shoot a project, where you have 10, 20 or more photographs on the same theme that are all supposed to work together.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 4, 2006

Donald

That's a very good point. Actually, adjusting negative development to fit the entire subject contrast onto grade 2 is the most common misunderstanding of the Zone System. Dodging and burning are valid contrast controls in the darkroom and make for a better balanced print with more impact. One just needs to take a look at AA's book to see how much he used them in addition to his Zone System. By no means did he try to get the whole subject brightness range into the 'normal' negative density range. In or days, we have yet another tool, which is MC papers.

I also suggest to select the image-significant subject brightness range, compensate the development to fit that to a grade 2 (or what is best for the image), fine-tune this range with MC control, and then dodge and burn (supported by MC control again) to maximize image impact. Nice to have an additional control.

VC paper vs. N+, N-

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Roger Hicks

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Roger Hicks

RalphLambrecht

sanking

Roger Hicks

Stephen Benskin

Donald Miller

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Allen Friday

RalphLambrecht

VC paper vs. N+, N-

Membership Council

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency