What are some fine grained, high resolution B&W film & development combinations which are good for lowering the contrast?

[Milpool]

That's ok - we don't need to agree on this. I like a lot of the printing, just not all of it (I'm only referring specifically to the original New Topographics exhibition). Either way I'm a fan. My favourite book is Salvesen (Steidl) from around 15 years ago but I see there is apparently a new edition. I don't know if there is anything different about it.

And that's where our conversation ends I'm afraid. I'm in awe of the work of the Neo Topographers as printed by the artists and reproduced by Aperture, Steidl, MACK and others.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, there you go! Something similar is very doable in the wet darkroom as well.
The main limitation you may run into with this particular file is the lack of shadow detail and the limited bit depth. The latter can be solved by scanning and editing at a higher bit depth. The former possibly too, provided that the negative holds enough detail where you need it. This may not be the case, so perhaps this particular scene would have done better with a bit more exposure.

Anyway, it's the principle that counts, and I think you're demonstrated very effectively that local optimizations really do work sometimes (or most of the time, or perhaps nearly always - YMMV).

 

[Alan Johnson]

Virtually unknown in N. America there seems to be a small number of photographers in Europe and UK who are using up the remaining stock of Adox CMS 20 microfilm. The preferred developer for this is Adotech IV but I devised one that that I use for scanning, I daresay it would be OK for silver gelatin printing at EIs lower than EI=20 that I have been using:

CD4-LC low contrast developer for scanning

I have found that use of high concentrations of CD-4 reduces the contrast of microfilms [pic] and the contrast is further reduced by minimal agitation every 3 min. In combination with reduction of contrast in scanner software this enables some microfilms to be shot at box speed. The CD-4...

www.photrio.com

 

[Saganich]

As an alternative to divided developer(s), my method (reduced agitation) seems to do exactly this -- bring up the shadows without allowing the highlights to block up or run away. I started this technique with Parodinal at1:50, but I've also used it with stock strength D-23 and Xtol. My "normal" process is to double developing time from charts for the dilution I'm using, but agitate only every third minute, instead of once or twice a minute. This allows the highlights to locally exhaust the developer at the emulsion surface while the shadows get a lot of time to develop. The effect is more pronounced with dilute developer, no doubt, but if you run stock strength with replenishment, it still works.

Yea, that works well also if you want to avoid dilutions or going down a divided path.

 

[albireo]

Thanks for all the discussion, it's been helpful. I tried a quick test of dodging the shadows up. I'd say it could definitely be worthwhile to do for an image like this. This was about five minutes of very basic painting the shadows and then applying the dodge blending mode, it could be improved with more time spent.

Unadjusted

View attachment 397659

Original contrast cu

Localized edits

View attachment 397661

Aaand...That shows how tastes differ, once again! For me, your unedited top image is by far the most interesting. The other ones are much worse. I just don't like the forced contrast, those crushed blacks. As I expected, playing with the curves did nothing of relevance.

Now if you go again to the same location, do what I and Ralph suggested. If you have a tight (80%-20%) centre-weighted meter, or a 5% spot meter, get close, and measure the light at those rocks in shade up top. Then, correct by underexposing two stops (some people would say three, some one. Try two, to start with). Load a 24 frame roll in your camera, set it at half box speed, and work the entire roll around the same scene/area. Seems like a nice place: rocks, sand crystal clear sea. You will easily be able to study the area for an hour or two and dedicate the whole roll to it. When you do this, you might find your entire roll will be shot at roughly similar contrast settings if the weather remains the same and dusk is still far. This means you can then operate on development-related variables for the entire roll. Try cutting development by 25% from what you're used to with the chosen film/dev combo on normal contrast situations. If the weather changes, or you can't finish the roll there, some of your images won't be optimally developed. No biggie - consider them fillers or post-process them to taste.

With a bit of trial and error, you'll learn to get a much more information-rich negative (some would say a 'better' one), that will allow you to do just what you vision demands: a) do as little as needed or b) play with your curves/dodge/burn/bring out some 'rich blacks' etc.

You should try a cheap-ish, robust film like Kentmere 100. Being cheap you won't feel bad dedicating entire rolls to a frantic photoshoot of scenes of similar contrast that will benefit from the same amount of exposure and development tweaking.

Exciting times ahead for you!

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Why would slower films have higher contrast? - unless you're re-purposing what were essentially micro or technical copying films, like old Tech Pan, which has been done.

Because the grain size Distribution is lower. So any slow speed film has a lower (total) latitude than a higher speed film (because it is lacking the coarser grains). This however does not mean per se that a higher speed film resolves the problems of the harsh contrasts in the desert better because it also depends on the makeup of the emulsion mix and the behavior on a specific part of the characteristic curve. But in (very) general (lets say very alike films but one being 50 and one being 400 ASA) you have a more forgiving film in the 400 ASA class. This is why we sell dedicated "contrast taming" developers for the HR-50 and CMS 20 II.
The so called "technical" films are nothing but regular even slower speed films. You just get cornered more and more the finer in grain you go.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's the characteristic curve of the film which counts with high contrast scenes, regardless of the speed. The only really fine grained film with a long straight line I ever encountered was the late Efke 25.

I had to work with a lot of Tech Pan for exactly that, technical purposes, like sleuthing art fraud in paintings and copy work. Used it in formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10, back when such tasks were done on a copy stand with real film and not digitally yet. But no matter what kind of special developer you did or didn't use, the result never resembled ordinary taking films at all. There were always harsh shadows and highlights.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

It's the characteristic curve of the film which counts with high contrast scenes, regardless of the speed. The only really fine grained film with a long straight line I ever encountered was the late Efke 25.

I had to work with a lot of Tech Pan for exactly that, technical purposes, like sleuthing art fraud in paintings and copy work. Used it in formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10, back when such tasks were done on a copy stand with real film and not digitally yet. But no matter what kind of special developer you did or didn't use, the result never resembled ordinary taking films at all. There were always harsh shadows and highlights.

Exactly. From the low ISO films efke/ADOX KB25 was the grainiest one in its speed class. It had a very wide grain dispersity (very old emulsion). CMS 20 II is on the opposite side of the spectrum, TechPan would be in the middle between the two.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The term I've seen applied to microfilm stocks (such as the parent stock of CMS 20/CMS 20 II, as I understand it) is "monodispersed" -- all one grain size, which means silver grains are (for the most part) either exposed or unexposed, they either have or haven't received enough light energy to form one or more latent image specks and hence will or won't be developed. The fact we can get any kind of gray scale at all out of these films is because the "monodispersed" is actually a "very slightly heterodispersed" in that it's impossible to make all the grains exactly the same. With the right developer, you can get useful gray scale gamut from microfilms, but you have almost no latitude (over- or under-expose by as little as 2/3 stop and you lose the highlights or shadows) and a range of only four or so stops between extremes in your scene.

As I've noted above, there are films with very low speed but well dispersed grain that will give good gray range in normal development -- but they're typically only available in 35 mm, because they're made for final distribution prints of professional motion pictures. You can expect ISO speeds between 6 and 25 for these, and their characteristics will be similar to KB25 (which is still finer grain than a cubic grain ISO 100 film like FP4+ or Foma 100).

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

The term I've seen applied to microfilm stocks (such as the parent stock of CMS 20/CMS 20 II, as I understand it) is "monodispersed" -- all one grain size, which means silver grains are (for the most part) either exposed or unexposed, they either have or haven't received enough light energy to form one or more latent image specks and hence will or won't be developed. The fact we can get any kind of gray scale at all out of these films is because the "monodispersed" is actually a "very slightly heterodispersed" in that it's impossible to make all the grains exactly the same. With the right developer, you can get useful gray scale gamut from microfilms, but you have almost no latitude (over- or under-expose by as little as 2/3 stop and you lose the highlights or shadows) and a range of only four or so stops between extremes in your scene.

As I've noted above, there are films with very low speed but well dispersed grain that will give good gray range in normal development -- but they're typically only available in 35 mm, because they're made for final distribution prints of professional motion pictures. You can expect ISO speeds between 6 and 25 for these, and their characteristics will be similar to KB25 (which is still finer grain than a cubic grain ISO 100 film like FP4+ or Foma 100).

Well the names are not 100% scientific. You are right that a mondispersed emulsion would be 0/1 and all grains are of the same size however this is -even with most modern emulsion making machines and recipes- impossible to achive. An emulsion may be called monodisperse if it is >70% monodisperse. So in reality it is more or less monodisperse but thats what the manufacturer is at least aiming for. If CMS 20 was really monodisperse (100%) it could not show any greyscales. With very fine grained emulsions we also run into the problem of being unable to measure this. So even the 70% is somehwat a guess ;-)

 

[Slixtiesix]

I would vouch for POTA developer.

It decrease the contrast and give you a great greyscale.

PHENIDONE EXTENDED RANGE DEVELOPER (POTA)

I've use it on Aviphot family of film (Aviphot 40 and 80), which have high contrast,with great results.

Downside is that it make you lose one step of speed. Also no particular fine grained but havent notice any problem with Aviphot 40 (fine grained) so nothing to complain.

Is Aviphot 40 commercially available?

 

[dokko]

Personally I find T-Max 100 in XTOL (or Adox XT-3 these days) diluted 1+2 hard to beat. it pretty much handles all the contrast I'd ever need, with great resolution and tonality.

you can expose at ISO 50 (or even lower) and cut development time and agitation a bit to get a bit more shadow detail and lower contrast.

the current pdf only shows the curves for D-76, T-Max and T-Max RS dev:

https://www.kodakprofessional.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/resources/f4016_TMax_100.pdf

but he old german XTOL data sheet has some nice curves for different times, and even more for other films and dilutions:

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/xtolEntwickler.pdf

Delta 100 and Pan F+ would be other good choices.

I like to use Agfa Copex and Adox CMS 20 II in dedicated developers for maximum resolution, but it wouldn't be my first choice for hard desert sun because you really have to nail exposure and development to have them handle high contrast scenes.

 

[dokko]

If you are interested in high print quality (of course this depends on aesthetic preferences, but generally speaking...), the bottom line is you need to work on the print (or the editing in the case of digital scans etc.). In particular if you have a high contrast subject, you can't underdevelop your way to a great straight print. Making great prints is all about dodging/burning and/or localized contrast control. The negative is really the easy part.

I mainly agree with this.
of course this can lead to an over processed image too, which looks spectacular, but not really simplistic/realistic anymore.
so it's mainly a question of taste - you win something, you lose something...

PS: just 10minutes after writing this, I stumble over this video on youtube. The interesting bits ar actually around the 3minute and the 7minute mark::

 

[loccdor]

Because the grain size Distribution is lower. So any slow speed film has a lower (total) latitude than a higher speed film (because it is lacking the coarser grains). This however does not mean per se that a higher speed film resolves the problems of the harsh contrasts in the desert better because it also depends on the makeup of the emulsion mix and the behavior on a specific part of the characteristic curve. But in (very) general (lets say very alike films but one being 50 and one being 400 ASA) you have a more forgiving film in the 400 ASA class. This is why we sell dedicated "contrast taming" developers for the HR-50 and CMS 20 II.
The so called "technical" films are nothing but regular even slower speed films. You just get cornered more and more the finer in grain you go.

Thanks for chiming in and the explanation. I will need to give the HR-50 developer a try one of these days.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

You don't really need anything slower than Delta 100, T-Max 100, or Acros 100.

 

[oxcanary]

Reading all this has been fascinating and enlightening

 

[xkaes]

You don't really need anything slower than Delta 100, T-Max 100, or Acros 100.

Here's what David Brooks from Peterson's had to say:

http://www.subclub.org/apx25.pdf

 

[koraks]

Here's what David Brooks from Peterson's had to say:

Let's keep in mind though that he published that before any of the films existed that @Augustus Caesar refers to. That article was published about a decade before the major leap forward represented by the advent of t-grain B&W films.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Let's keep in mind though that he published that before any of the films existed that @Augustus Caesar refers to. That article was published about a decade before the major leap forward represented by the advent of t-grain B&W films.

Correct! Slower films have less latitude than the ones I mentioned. There is no antidote for this.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Is Aviphot 40 commercially available?

Now and again someone gets 70mm rolls and bulk load them. I got mine from a person in Poland. He sold them in here some time ago. I can share his email if you wish.

 

[koraks]

Now and again someone gets 70mm rolls and bulk load them. I got mine from a person in Poland. He sold them in here some time ago. I can share his email if you wish.

I think he already found the person: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-agfa-aviphot-40-120-mm.186571/#post-2893217
The question is if they're still selling this. It's been a while, going by the date of that ad.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I think he already found the person: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-agfa-aviphot-40-120-mm.186571/#post-2893217
The question is if they're still selling this. It's been a while, going by the date of that ad.

Yeah thats the one. I contacted him last year and he told he got a new batch and still available. Good luck getting some. Really liked the emulsión for my particular use (architecture and landscapes).

 

[Slixtiesix]

Yes I already spotted his offering. Many thanks though!

 

[Loren Sattler]

I get good results in high contrast scenes with Tri-X exposed at ASA200, developed in D76 1:1 for 7:30 to 8:15 minutes with a 2 minute presoak. Agitation is important. I initially agitate 6 vigorous full inversions (completed in 5 seconds), then repeat at 30 second intervals. Negatives print well with Ilford filters #1-1/2 or #2 on a variety of papers.

 

[dokko]

I get good results in high contrast scenes with Tri-X exposed at ASA200, developed in D76 1:1 for 7:30 to 8:15 minutes with a 2 minute presoak.

I really like Tri-X 400, but it's not exactly a fine-grained, high-resolution film.