What would be a good way to get negatives with higher than normal contrast but still a good tonality?

[loccdor]

I sometimes use, for example, Tri-X 400 when speed is required, but I'm looking to get more contrast out of it. If I wanted the contrast to be more like Adox HR-50, or Pan F, etc. which development routine would you recommend? Should I simply push process it?

For the purposes of this question please don't consider printing/post-processing, just the negative. Thanks for your wisdom.

 

[koraks]

Uh, just give more development.

But you said this:

the contrast to be more like Adox HR-50, or Pan F, etc.

This brings into question how you define 'contrast'. The simple interpretation is just a larger difference between the highest and the lowest densities in the negative. So more development will increase contrast (to a point). But the differences between types of film are also about curve shape and spectral sensitivity. I suspect some of that creeps into your definition of 'contrast'.

Perhaps it would help to see some examples of what you have in mind.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks. Right now, I have a slight unevenness in the illumination of my light source when digitizing film. I found that this is pretty much invisible on color slide or on a contrasty B&W like HR-50.

While I'm going to work on trying to get the light more even, I would also like a negative with more space between its darkest and lightest points, and still have the shades of gray look reasonably good.

 

[koraks]

It's kind of an obvious comment, but I'd not try to solve a problem with scanning/digitization by making denser negatives. Instead, solve the illumination problem in your digitization setup.

have the shades of gray look reasonably good

What does that mean? Or, conversely - what goes wrong in this regard if you develop TriX a little longer?

 

[retina_restoration]

Should I simply push process it?

Well, if by "push process it" you mean develop it longer (more time) then yes, that's how you do that.

 

[loccdor]

As long as I aim to match the contrast of another printable film, is there any drawback to that extended development in a wide-latitude film like Tri-X? Other than losing a little space for highlights.

I'm assuming you guys don't mean to expose it for less time simultaneously.

what goes wrong in this regard if you develop TriX a little longer?

I've only previously tried the longer development when shooting it at 1600. There is a bit of quality loss there - grain and less shadow detail - I guess what I am asking is if I can raise the contrast without the quality loss.

 

[koraks]

I'm assuming you guys don't mean to expose it for less time simultaneously.

Yeah, that's it - going by what you said here:

I've only previously tried the longer development when shooting it at 1600. There is a bit of quality loss there - grain and less shadow detail

You will indeed lose a lot of detail and contrast in the shadows by underexposing by 2 stops from box speed. If you only want to expand the dynamic range of the negative, then yes, give more development.

The effect won't be the same across the density range; this depends also on the developer you use. Some compress the highlights more than others.

Overall, yeah, you can raise contrast without losing too much quality, but there will be subtle differences. Grain will be emphasized. Highlights compress. As long as you don't overdo it, neither of these necessarily will be a problem.

 

[loccdor]

Great, I'll give that a go and try to fix the light source problem as well.

 

[John Wiegerink]

locdor,
I take it you are using a camera to digitize your film? Have you tried a much brighter light source? I remember duping slides using one of the better model Sunpak flash units and the output of the flash had to be diffused and regulated just right to get the proper copy.

 

[Vaughn]

Try FP4+ at box speed and developed in Ilford PQ Universal Developer. Great expansion. But slower film than you want and probably more expansion than you want.

 

[MattKing]

Increased contrast through increased development will usually lead to an increase in grain.
What you are referring to is also known as an "expansion" development - N+1 etc. in Zone speak.

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm with Vaughn — FP4+ is fantastic for expansion development.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

It seems to me that the OP is not looking for "expansion" development, or a "push," but rather the correct development time to give him what he considers to be "normal" contrast.

OP, if that's the case, just increase development time, fine-tuning until you get the contrast you want from your negatives. Keep in mind that subject contrast plays a huge role in your results (that's why Zone System users base their development times on the contrast range of the subject).

If you're looking to increase contrast for flat subjects, then that is indeed an expansion, Typical N+1 times for Zone System users are around 20% more development time. That will increase grain a bit compared to less development, but it does give you the increase in overall contrast on the negative you need. And, unless you are changing development time by 25% or more, you won't experience a huge difference in quality, just a tiny bit.

All that said, if you are digitizing negatives (however you do that), why can't you just adjust contrast in post?

Best,

Doremus

 

[loccdor]

All that said, if you are digitizing negatives (however you do that), why can't you just adjust contrast in post?

Thank you. The larger contrast adjustment in post for Tri-X is causing light diffusion unevenness in my backlight to become slightly visible. It's not noticeable in higher contrast film.

Can you see the unevenness here through a blank piece of Tri-X? Unaltered RAW file from a digitization session. It's just slightly enough to cause a problem at times.

Here it is beside an exposure on Tri-X for comparison's sake.

It's hard to see. Let's amplify it.

Quite often I'll apply gradients to the image to combat it, or try using the blank piece of film as a "divide" filter before any edits are made, but these are not without their downfalls.

Part of the problem is that I've had to add a clear piece of acrylic to my setup between light source and holder because my film holder is of such a shape that its feet are right on the borders of my light source. I need to remove this and try an alternate method of mating the two... as well as varying the distance between the two to aim for less "light vignette" and taping up anything that is contributing to internal reflection.

Thank you guys for teaching me the term "expansion development."

 

[koraks]

That negative above looks OK to me.

I'd just fix the actual problem instead of trying to work around it. You'd end up chasing your own tail. I think many of us have similar experiences; I sure have.

 

[loccdor]

That negative above looks OK to me.

I'd just fix the actual problem instead of trying to work around it. You'd end up chasing your own tail. I think many of us have similar experiences; I sure have.

You're totally right. It's a Cs-Lite and an Essential Film Holder. I'm going to try removing the Perspex light diffusion material layer from the holder completely, as it should already be properly diffused coming from the light itself.

 

[koraks]

At risk of negating my own (evidently excellent, LOL) advice - have you tried reducing the vignetting on the digital capture in your RAW conversion software? While not perfect, it may be decent enough until you work out a solid / real solution.

 

[GregY]

K, can this be moved to a digital or hybrid sub forum?
it wasn't clear from outset......that this was not for analog output

 

[koraks]

K, can this be moved to a digital or hybrid sub forum?

It could, but I won't, since the question primarily is about film development. This fits within the scope of the forum this is posted in.

 

[Vaughn]

It seems to me that the OP is not looking for "expansion" development, or a "push," but rather the correct development time to give him what he considers to be "normal" contrast.
...

Doremus

That's the best option, but the OP seems to want a certain look and it may be a speed plus fine grain plus contrast combo that may be difficult to achieve. Usually one gives something up.

Like the old joke, What one looks for in a partner is someone who is; 1) attractive, 2) smart, 3) emotionally stable -- Pick two.

What I had suggested (film-developer combo) would increase grain and is not recommended for roll films. It would not look like Pan F. But FP4+ is a fine beastie.

 

[cliveh]

My suggestion to the OP would be Pan F exposed at box speed and developed for 14 minutes at 20C/68F in D76 at 1:1

 

[braxus]

Most 25 ISO B&W films have high contrast and good tonality, but it is a slow film.

 

[GregY]

To go back to the OP "I sometimes use, for example, Tri-X 400 when speed is required, but I'm looking to get more contrast out of it"
it really depends what degree of contrast vs tonality you want. I'd be inclined to expose/process according to the inherent scene contrast....& then print to the result you want. IMO you may not get the result you want by just changing one part of the process.

 

[djdister]

I've always found Tri-X to be quite contrasty, especially if developed in HC-110, Dilution B, or Ilfotec HC. Without even extending the developing time, if you increase the agitation in development you will get some increase in contrast, or just lengthen the development time.

Your negative seems to have enough contrast as it is, but there is an obvious unevenness in the illumination such that the entire right side of the frame (in this orientation) is significantly lighter. And the unevenness is not centered like typical vignetting, so you should consider using a bigger/more even light source.

 

[loccdor]

@djdister That may have been a bad example on my part, this camera's been known for uneven exposures on the higher speeds, I don't want to confuse things. Good catch on that though.

I've always found Tri-X to be quite contrasty, especially if developed in HC-110, Dilution B

That's what I usually develop it in. I guess I am just used to the HR-50 at this point so my frame of reference is biased. However, that lens in that example picture is very contrasty itself (it only came out a few years ago) and with vintage lenses the results I got were flatter. Not always a bad thing.

Anyways - I think I found the solution regarding light source but I'll have to test it more later. To not get into digital territory, more discussions in the theme of this subforum about getting contrasty results from 400+ speed film are appreciated. Slow films already have a lot of options for that when developed at box speed.