What film has the best dynamic range ?

[Sirius Glass]

What do you do if the ground is in shade and you're also including a blue sky in the shot? You can easily be four stops difference which counts a lot if you're shooting chromes.

Meter the ground and the sky will find its place. Meter the sky and the ground will be a silhouette. So follow sentence number 1.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Meter the ground and the sky will find its place. Meter the sky and the ground will be a silhouette. So follow sentence number 1.

If you're using chrome and meter the ground to set exposure, you'll burn out the sky. You could do the second and get a silhouette. But some shots don't lend themselves to silhouettes. The ground just looks overly dark, just underexposed. Only a grad will give you the latitude to catch both areas.

I do agree with you that you have to use a light touch. If you use a grad with too many stops, then the light balance looks fake. One or two stops at the most should do it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you're using chrome and meter the ground to set exposure, you'll burn out the sky. You could do the second and get a silhouette. But some shots don't lend themselves to silhouettes. The ground just looks overly dark, just underexposed. Only a grad will give you the latitude to catch both areas.

I do agree with you that you have to use a light touch. If you use a grad with too many stops, then the light balance looks fake. One or two stops at the most should do it.

With slides no one cares about a burnt out sky. If you have to have both use color negative film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

With slides no one cares about a burnt out sky. If you have to have both use color negative film.

Huh?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan - If the whole scene contrast range is out of whack, I simply move on. I've already got hundreds of excellent sheet film chromes on hand that I'll never live long enough to print. Once in awhile, like when you have a consistent horizon line between sky and foreground, a grad filter might make sense. But that kind of situation is pretty rare in the mountainous West. We aren't in Kansas anymore. Maybe I'm just disgusted by the way Galen Rowell and his clones abused these kinds of filters and made such fake-looking images of scenes which could have been more tastefully rendered.

The whole point in personal shooting (versus the kind of salvage printing commercial labs are often forced to do) is to find the best fit between foot and shoe, between specific scene and specific film. All of this became second-nature to me half a century ago. It wasn't long till I simply homed in on image opportunities which matched the native range of the film itself. But only somewhat later, when I actually began color printing myself, did I truly understand certain inherent limitations, and how to truly optimize my shots.

 

[Helge]

I only use the terms for mean usable number of f/stops and avoid all the marginal cases.

But what is a “useable stop”‽ Even flat information deep in the shoulder can be useable.

 

[Helge]

What do you do if the ground is in shade and you're also including a blue sky in the shot? You can easily be four stops difference which counts a lot if you're shooting chromes.

You have to compensate in camera.
And decide whether you want projection, or use slide for its superior micro contrast, special colours and forthright baked in profile.

Use a polarizer and a gradated ND filter for the sky.
And meter more toward the light side.

Slide hides a lot more information in the shade than CN. Even if the film looks super dense.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Useable for specifically WHAT ??? - that's the crux of the question. One needs to appraise their own personal standards and esthetic objectives, as well as realistic printing capabilities. Some people don't mind serious color crossover issues or horrible out-of-bounds grain artifacts, and might even use that creatively; others can't stand it. Offset press applications geared to publishing will toss film in the trashcan or return it unused because they necessarily have strictly defined contrast parameters.

"Slides hold a lot more information in the shade, even if the film looks super dense" ... Yeah, so does a bank vault. The problem is whether you can crack the door open or not, and do so without blowing up the whole building.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But what is a “useable stop”‽ Even flat information deep in the shoulder can be useable.

Useable for specifically WHAT ??? - that's the crux of the question. One needs to appraise their own personal standards and esthetic objectives, as well as realistic printing capabilities. Some people don't mind serious color crossover issues or horrible out-of-bounds grain artifacts, and might even use that creatively; others can't stand it. Offset press applications geared to publishing will toss film in the trashcan or return it unused because they necessarily have strictly defined contrast parameters.

"Slides hold a lot more information in the shade, even if the film looks super dense" ... Yeah, so does a bank vault. The problem is whether you can crack the door open or not, and do so without blowing up the whole building.

The useful stop is one that is not deeply buried in the shoulder or the toe so far that little or nothing is useful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Same with black and white printing. Just because a densitometer can resolve certain steps in nether regions of the universe doesn't mean they're of practical use. Yeah, a carbon or Pt/Pd printer might want some extra density, and I sometimes deliberately overexpose and slightly overdevelop certain films to expand the midtone microtonality, and then rein the overall contrast back in with a registered contrast mask (potentially plus pyro stain, plus VC paper control etc). But all that will only get you to the surface of the Moon at best. And every time I see a print by someone bragging they can solve everything in PS, which is actually quite often, I think to myself, why did they even bother? I wonder how many of them have ever even seen a well made black and white print, let alone a well made color one. If someone really wants to take advantage of the full size of an ice skating rink, they should at least know where the practical boundaries are, or else be willing to arrive back home on crutches. Learn from the middle first.

 

[Helge]

The answers is probably:
TMax 400 for B&W
Portra 400 for CN
And Provia 100 for slide.

That supposes that as long a relatively straight line as possible is what you want.

Stuff like HP5 can probably hold more range totally but the quality drops off towards the extremes.

Both TMY and Portra 400 has some kind of stops (really no judging because they are hard to dig out, but you can see them in bright backlight) in excess of 16 to 18 stops.
Normally these shots would be deemed overexposed, but with pulling and multiple scan exposures/masking they should be possible to use.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another analogy. 16 to 18 stops? Reminds me of the person who climbed El Capitan cliff in Yosemite, which is about 3500 ft high, but forgot he only had 200 ft of rope when rappelling back down. That started the saying that he had established a "speed descent record". He indeed got back down, but things were awfully messy at the bottom. Anyone who can get more than 11 or 12 usable stops out of TMY, without resorting to heavy-handed compensating development or minus-developing ("pulling"), which crushes the life out of the midtones, must be some kind of miracle worker. It's uncommon to even encounter 12 stops of range in nature, although I frequently do in the extremes of mountain photography between deep deep shadows and glimmering snow or glacial ice, or even around here in the extremes of deep wooded shade and glimmering shafts on light breaking through on bare white branches. The whole point of that long straight line is to employ it wisely, and not as an excuse for careless exposure. In fact, TMax film can be especially unforgiving of sloppy exposure and development. I shoot TMax (both speeds) all the time, in multiple formats. But it's the black and white film I necessarily most carefully meter for. And when I do work in an 11 stop range, I often need to mask to, to get full rich detail and tonality.

HP5 has a moderately long toe, and nowhere near as long a usable straight line as TMax. But the real winners were old 200 speed films like Super-XX and Bergger 200. Current Foma 200 also has an exceptionally long straight line, but won't except expanded development to anywhere near the same degree.

Pulling? Most color films don't pull well anymore. I've fiddled enough with Portra 400 in the darkroom to realize something is just off if it's abused with significant overexposure. Sometimes in photojournalism or street photography etc rules need to be stretched. But there is always a qualitative penalty. Just depends on one's expectations. It's makes a lot more sense to avoid a train wreck than clean one up after the fact.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Another analogy. 16 to 18 stops? Reminds me of the person who climbed El Capitan cliff in Yosemite, which is about 3500 ft high, but forgot he only had 200 ft of rope when rappelling back down. That started the saying that he had established a "speed descent record". He indeed got back down, but things were awfully messy at the bottom.

But he got great coverage and made a big impression.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The saying inevitably changed to, "He set a speed descent record that's been equalled, but never exceeded:". In other words, the same mistake was repeated by others. Another similarity to these photographic discussions.

 

[Helge]

Another analogy. 16 to 18 stops? Reminds me of the person who climbed El Capitan cliff in Yosemite, which is about 3500 ft high, but forgot he only had 200 ft of rope when rappelling back down. That started the saying that he had established a "speed descent record". He indeed got back down, but things were awfully messy at the bottom. Anyone who can get more than 11 or 12 usable stops out of TMY, without resorting to heavy-handed compensating development or minus-developing ("pulling"), which crushes the life out of the midtones, must be some kind of miracle worker. It's uncommon to even encounter 12 stops of range in nature, although I frequently do in the extremes of mountain photography between deep deep shadows and glimmering snow or glacial ice, or even around here in the extremes of deep wooded shade and glimmering shafts on light breaking through on bare white branches. The whole point of that long straight line is to employ it wisely, and not as an excuse for careless exposure. In fact, TMax film can be especially unforgiving of sloppy exposure and development. I shoot TMax (both speeds) all the time, in multiple formats. But it's the black and white film I necessarily most carefully meter for. And when I do work in an 11 stop range, I often need to mask to, to get full rich detail and tonality.

HP5 has a moderately long toe, and nowhere near as long a usable straight line as TMax. But the real winners were old 200 speed films like Super-XX and Bergger 200. Current Foma 200 also has an exceptionally long straight line, but won't except expanded development to anywhere near the same degree.

Pulling? Most color films don't pull well anymore. I've fiddled enough with Portra 400 in the darkroom to realize something is just off if it's abused with significant overexposure. Sometimes in photojournalism or street photography etc rules need to be stretched. But there is always a qualitative penalty. Just depends on one's expectations. It's makes a lot more sense to avoid a train wreck than clean one up after the fact.

No one is talking about sloppiness or carelessness.

Sounds like you’re talking about dark room printing exclusively. Which unless you are exceptionally good and have pin register equipment, is not the way to get full dynamic range out of the film.
It’s the best way to get to some other aspects of film.
But not dynamic range.

You can frame anything as bad, by inserting expletives and negative modifiers.
Moderate compensating development and pulling is possible.

If you like to shoot in a contrasty environment that can be not only nice, but also necessary to show what you want.
Difference between clouds or snow and an indoor environment can easily exceed 12 stops.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If real information can be retrieved via a scan, it can be retrieved in a darkroom. And yes, I have plenty of pin registration gear and lots of experience with it. Are you saying you shoot an indoor environment in the SAME shot as bright cloud and snow?? That would be unusual. I've done a fair amount architectural photography, and such situations, uncommon as they are, called for balancing the indoor lighting first. And by the way, this IS the darkroom and film side of the forum. I'm well aware of how digital printers do it, or attempt to do it, and what drum scanners are capable of. Let's stick with the relevant methodology in this case.

 

[Helge]

The compartmentalisation and stiff arbitrary ontology of this board is far more of a hindrance than a help.
This is about film, and films dynamic range. Full. Stop.

And I wager that there is possible exposures that are so thin or so dense, that they would be nigh on impossible to DR print with conventional equipment. Exposures that would be possible to get usable results from, in a camera scan.

Taking photos from inside including outside scenery or vice versa is not that unusual.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't print or have a darkroom so I can opine from that end. But with scanning, I do seem to be able to pull out data from dark areas of the chromes that didn't seem possible. Somehow some of the data is there despite being "underexposed". Whether the picture print will come out OK from the scan, I don't know. But it looks ok on a monitor

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm not going to waste any more time debating you Helge. If someone want's to go dumpster diving to see what they can fetch out of the deepest darkest recesses of the container, that's their right. Rats and cockroaches make a living doing that, so it apparently works for some; but it's not to my taste.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan, high-end pro scanners can go even deeper. And since you like to shoot Velvia, it's interesting that measurable density steps per se for that particular film do go down quite a ways. The problem is that none of that extra mileage down there into that black abyss is good for much of anything. It's largely extreme density blue dye with a much bigger dye cluster (grainy look) than what lies above, and is meant to reproduce as sheer black. If you try to print it lighter, it's gonna look awfully weird. But all this is academic anyway. Once you go down the pathway of scanning, most folks are committed to color inkjet printing, which has a terrible time with gradations of black. I won't go into the more exotic printing options. The whole point is just because "something" is there doesn't necessarily make it useable.

Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry : "A man's got to know his limitations". Once one begins to do actual serious color printmaking, that remark suddenly gains a lot of relevance.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Not correct, I'm afraid.
The colour response of the various dyes and colour couplers in negative film inherently have some deficiencies that cannot be engineered out. The mask provides a proportional compensating factor for those deficiencies which responds exactly to the image itself - the mask and its compensating factor varies with the colours in the negative. Then, when it is time to print, the effect of the mask can be reversed by simply filtering the result. The RA-4 paper or EF-P cine print projection film has that filtration built right in (along with inversion of the resulting colours).
Negative alone: - some colours are deficient, and colours are inverted.
Negative + mask: - deficient colours are compensated for, but overall single colour cast added, and colours are inverted.
Negative + mask + RA-4 paper/projection print film: - deficient colours are compensated for, the mask colour is filtered out and the the colours are inverted.
Voila, beautiful, natural colours!

Discovery and implementation of the technology behind the orange mask was revolutionary, and is the reason that negative + positive colour systems have a better chance to achieve colour accuracy than direct positive or positive + positive systems.

Thank you, Matt!

 

[Helge]

I'm not going to waste any more time debating you Helge. If someone want's to go dumpster diving to see what they can fetch out of the deepest darkest recesses of the container, that's their right. Rats and cockroaches make a living doing that, so it apparently works for some; but it's not to my taste.

You can frame anything as bad, by inserting expletives and negative modifiers.
Moderate compensating development and pulling is possible.

Making a habit of it?

A big part of the character of a medium is how it reacts at the limits of its recording capability.
Some clip, others roll off gradually in various ways.

No one is talking about pulling out shoulder and foot out front and center. That would just be sloppy exposure.

But it can make the difference between the clippy/black void look and a pleasant roll off.

But yeah, we are probably wasting each others time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, high-end pro scanners can go even deeper. And since you like to shoot Velvia, it's interesting that measurable density steps per se for that particular film do go down quite a ways. The problem is that none of that extra mileage down there into that black abyss is good for much of anything. It's largely extreme density blue dye with a much bigger dye cluster (grainy look) than what lies above, and is meant to reproduce as sheer black. If you try to print it lighter, it's gonna look awfully weird. But all this is academic anyway. Once you go down the pathway of scanning, most folks are committed to color inkjet printing, which has a terrible time with gradations of black. I won't go into the more exotic printing options. The whole point is just because "something" is there doesn't necessarily make it useable.

Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry : "A man's got to know his limitations". Once one begins to do actual serious color printmaking, that remark suddenly gains a lot of relevance.

I don't print right now and when I do I'll do it in an outside lab with their own scanning and printing services. Maybe you can print one up for me chemically. I'll pay if reasonable. I'd like to see that Fuji paper you mentioned you use that takes the place of that discontinued process. How about one of these 4x5's?

4x5 Color Large Format

Explore this photo album by Alan Klein on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

I can't even begin to compete with commercial options, Alan. To start from a 4X5 chrome, for example, and end up with a master internegative suitable for a stunning RA4 print, involves multiple film registration steps. Velvia is especially tricky. I'm printing some 8x10 internegs now; but those necessarily had to be generated on a batch basis during the right time of year when the humidity was stable for a couple months or so, or something gets out of register unless the original chromes are all on stable PET base, not triacetate. Quite a bit goes into it up front. The end result is well worth it; but the cumulative process ... $$$.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I can't even begin to compete with commercial options, Alan. To start from a 4X5 chrome, for example, and end up with a master internegative suitable for a stunning RA4 print, involves multiple film registration steps. Velvia is especially tricky. I'm printing some 8x10 internegs now; but those necessarily had to be generated on a batch basis during the right time of year when the humidity was stable for a couple months or so, or something gets out of register unless the original chromes are all on stable PET base, not triacetate. Quite a bit goes into it up front. The end result is well worth it; but the cumulative process ... $$$.

Ok. Well, thanks anyway, Drew. What was that paper you mentioned and do you know anyone commercially who does a good job?