Schwarzschild
Hello,
Perhaps my question cannot be answered without seeing the negatives, but I’ll try to describe the problem anyway.
I have 35mm films that are evenly exposed (i.e. with no major fluctuations in density) and show good detail in both the highlights and the shadows.
(I’m currently working with Silvermax 100 in Silvermax developer).
I’m printing on ADOX paper.
In tests, I’ve determined the maximum black (at the shortest possible exposure time) so that the prints don’t remain ‘grey’.
However, if I use this determined exposure time to enlarge the negatives, the entire print always turns out too dark. This means the highlights are no longer bright enough.
Solution: develop the film for longer, as the development time affects almost exclusively the highlights.
Result: higher-contrast negatives, which can no longer be enlarged without manual intervention (dodging, burning) – not even as a first or working copy.
(Silvermax 100 in Silvermax developer: 14:30 instead of 11:00 mins)
I realise that the paper’s dynamic range is smaller than that of the negative. But with normal subject contrasts, surely it should be possible to produce a simple print without any manipulation?
Where might I be going wrong?
I’ve had the problem with ‘too weak highlights’ – which then simply don’t ‘shine’ in the positive – for years, even with other films. There’s always detail in the shadows, so I assume the exposure is basically correct.
Perhaps someone has an idea?
Many thanks
€
HenningH
There are probably a few more details that are important: exactly which paper, what gradient, how it’s filtered, which enlarger, which paper developer, and how long is it developed for?
KlausWehner
As Henning has already said: there is some important information missing that would allow us to give a definitive answer regarding your problem.
?
What type of paper (gradient)?
Which paper developer, and what dilution?
What enlarger (condenser, mixed light chamber)?
?
Basically, your approach is correct.
?
I’m personally familiar with this problem too:
for my workflow (Durst colour mixing head, Adox MCP / MCC paper, Adotol paper developer), I definitely need negatives with higher contrast (gamma 0.8...0.9).
?
With many developers, such a high contrast can no longer be achieved without difficulty.
?
To be honest, it’s a mystery to me that such problems aren’t reported much more often.
I often see images from other photographers that simply appear lacklustre and flat.
I think that in those cases, the negative contrast was probably too low as well.
?
Everything done ‘right’ – and yet an unsatisfactory result...
?
So you’ll probably need to increase your negative contrast – until you can enlarge a ‘full-scale print’ onto paper with a gradient of 2 or 3.
(But of course, within reasonable limits, contrast is also a matter of taste).
?
I think many people are affected by this problem without realising it.
?
Best regards
Klaus
?
?
.
?
Schwarzschild
Thank you very much for the initial comments and queries.
Here is the missing information:
Developer: Rollei Vintage Classic Dev. 1+9 (=normal contrast)
Paper: Adox MCP
Enlarger: Kaiser Multigrade head
I usually use the ‘manual split grade’ method, i.e. I expose with filters ‘0’ and ‘5’ one after the other. When doing this, I generally have to expose significantly longer with ‘5’ than with ‘0’.
?
Your comment, Klaus, that ‘with many developers, such a high contrast can no longer be achieved without difficulty’ is already a starting point for me. Somehow I thought paper developers hardly differed at all. But first of all, I could try a different working solution (1+4 is recommended for higher contrast), which I haven’t tried at all yet.
?
So, many thanks for now.
?
?
?
TR
If your highlights are turning out too dark, you’re applying the split-grade method slightly incorrectly: you’re applying the 0-grade filter for too long. With conventional grading, the gradient would be too soft. As I said before: your negatives are simply too soft.
€
To be honest, it’s a mystery to me that such problems aren’t reported much more often.
I often see pictures by other photographers that simply appear lacklustre and flat.
I think that in such cases, the negative contrast was probably too low as well.
?
€
After years of observation – mostly on the Aphog forum – it seems to me that producing a ‘fine’ image, i.e. a ‘full-scale print’, is beyond the capabilities of most people because they are technically unable to ‘break down’ images. They analyse images holistically at a glance, rather than on the basis of local features. If they happen to produce such a print by chance, they do not know what makes it more successful than others. “Beautiful grey tones” is then the impression. The simple relationship between the rendering of highlights and shadows, or the associated correct “balance” of gradient and exposure time, does not seem to occur to many. It’s a shame, really.
(Fortunately, some subjects do not require such careful elaboration to be effective.)
KlausWehner
First of all:
As T.R. has quite rightly pointed out: Schwarzschild, you’ve misunderstood me. With many negative developers, it’s not easy to achieve the desired higher contrast.
€
However, I must also add: the negative developer itself often presents an (unseen) problem (too high a dilution, too short a development time, working with used developers). Here too, one should not always believe the occasionally optimistic claims made by manufacturers.
It is important to establish your own reference and then, as far as possible, to work consistently with tried-and-tested materials.
€
The entire process chain must be right!
Anyone who performs the exposure of their negative at the rated speed and develops it according to the manufacturer’s recommendations often already has two faults in the negative: underexposure and underdevelopment (as in this particular case).
€
You will still be able to print an image from the negative – but you probably won’t get it quite ‘spot on’.
(This is a generalisation! Furthermore, I am referring exclusively to fine art printing).
€
I can only agree with T.R.! A systematic, analytical approach is the quickest way to achieve the desired result.
In my darkroom courses, I discuss the test strips in great detail with each participant. In this way, they learn all the complex interrelationships surprisingly quickly, without any prior theoretical introduction being necessary.
The ‘beauty’ of the grey tones then becomes immediately and intuitively apparent. The path to achieving this becomes clear (as do the limitations of a negative).
€
@ Schwarzschild
I don’t work with manual split-grade printing. That’s why I can’t say much about it.
If you print a test strip using the harshest gradient, you’ll already see just how much (or how little) “soft light” is needed to bring out just enough detail in the highlights whilst still preserving their luminosity.
Why not just try printing one without any filtering? That’s the aim: to expose and develop negatives in such a way that they can be printed without any problems, without the need for filtering.
€
My recommendation: expose the Silvermax at 64 ASA and perform the development to achieve higher contrast.
(I don’t know if that will work with the developer you’re using – this developer tends to have a rather flat time-gamma curve).
€
In conclusion: what has been said touches on the very essence of (analogue black-and-white) photography. However, this cannot be covered here in the necessary detail.
Another tip: at the fineartforum on 2–3 November 2013 in Paderborn, we will be offering several workshops on precisely the topics mentioned:
Practical film calibration with Dr Otto Beyer
The path to a fine print with Uwe Pilz
Image review with Werner Kumpf
€
Participation is free of charge – but registration is required due to the limited number of places.
The full programme will be available again
at
www.fineartforum.info
. In addition, many other experts will be present and available to discuss such issues.
€
Warm regards from Paderborn
Klaus
Schwarzschild
Thank you once again for the detailed replies.
"After years of observation... it seems to me that creating a 'refined image'... is beyond the capabilities of most people..." – with all due respect, what is contained in T.R.'s reply sounds somewhat condescending. The separation of the visual impression from the actual factual (technical) conditions (and ultimately, of course, the reconciliation of the two in the evaluation) is a complex aesthetic/technical process that requires that one a) has first been introduced to it and b) can devote sufficient time to doing so. I consider it too sweeping to deny most amateur photographers the ability to do this.
?
But now to my problem.
@ Klaus
Thank you for the invitation to the fineartforum. That is certainly a good idea.
Until then, however, I still need to make further progress.
I did not simply accept the standard exposure time of 100 ASA for the Silvermax without checking it. That was exactly what the actual speed turned out to be after testing (with a densitometer). (I know, unusual, but that’s how it was.)
The fact that the recommended developer (Silvermax) now only allows for a limited increase in contrast is therefore probably the real problem (apart from the option of switching to a condenser enlarger).
So far, I’ve extended the development time by 30%. Visible changes, but not enough. High-contrast subjects (midday sun in the city) have all the tonal values (though at gradient 5 and only these negatives with high subject contrast). Should I extend it further now, or switch to a different developer? And if so, which developer will give me the full speed (the films have already been exposed) and still produce the desired result? Perhaps you have any tips?
Many thanks.
?
?
?
KlausWehner
Hello Schwarzschild,
?
It seems the solution to the problem has already been found: a higher negative contrast.
?
But first, a quick note from me: I don’t want to generalise my recommendations here.
What Schwarzschild has described matches my own experience 100%. In fact, many, many other photographers should be having exactly the same experience.
I cannot say why this is not the case. It is likely that many others have found their own way of achieving their images. Not everyone takes a truly systematic approach to enlargement. Every method has its merits.
Nevertheless, I believe that by ‘working by the book’, one does not utilise the full potential that actually lies within analogue black-and-white photography.
My goal is the “fine art print”. For me, that means making the most of all resources – both technical and aesthetic.
That is an ideal and, in many respects, a subjective one. And it is precisely this (maximum) subjectivity that I value in photography.
?
The sensitivity specification for Silvermax is refreshingly honest and realistic – I can confirm that. Measuring the speed yourself with a densitometer is subject to some tolerances. The difference between your measurement and mine is so small that I would say it still falls within the measurement tolerance.
Nevertheless, I would strongly advise tending towards a slightly longer exposure. In any case, it enhances the detail in the shadows without compromising the quality of the negative.
My recommendation therefore remains unchanged: 64 ASA (even if your own measurement indicates a higher speed).
?
As already mentioned: ‘soft’ negative developers are currently in vogue (all ‘miracle developers’ are consistently soft-set hydroquinone-phenidone developers).
This makes it virtually impossible to achieve higher contrast. Furthermore, one must expect a decline in image quality.
This also applies to the developer you are using (even if its formula is slightly different).
As I personally haven’t found a negative developer that meets my specific requirements, I have been working with my own formulations for years.
?
However, I don’t wish to discuss this topic publicly. Send me a private message, and I can tell you more about it.
?
Warm regards from Paderborn
Klaus
HenningH
Mmm... Who actually decided that 'special' gradient is the be-all and end-all?
?
My standard film is Plus-X, with an exposure at 125 ASA, developed in HC-110 dilution D for 6.5 minutes. This time (i.e. that for dilution B + 25%) comes from Michael Covington’s website; Kodak’s official times are extremely short. This gives me negatives similar to those developed in D-76 at the times specified on the package insert.
Enlarged with my Focomat V35 on Fomaspeed, Polymax or MGIV, or Fomatone, Varycon or Variotone developed in Moersch SE warm or Dektol, I get usable results at a gradient of 3.5; sometimes 3, sometimes 4, rarely 2.5. (I only need a gradient of 2 when enlarging orthochromatic film.) Then, after a bit of dodging and burning, I believe (and so do my photographer friends) that these prints have something akin to fine art quality.
I’ve never really got on with MCP and MCC in the past. I could never quite hit the point where the print ‘came off right’. It would quickly become too light or too dark. But as there are plenty of other papers I can work with, I didn’t attach much importance to it.
?
My experience with manual split-grade was rather sobering. A comparison with the corresponding fixed filter setting made no difference to me.
However, I find it very useful when you partially re-expose certain areas (the sky) with a different gradient.
?
Perhaps I’ll manage to make it to Paderborn this year...
?
Best regards
?
Henning
KlausWehner
Well done, Henning!
There’s nothing better than finding your own way to create images you’re happy with.
Your approach to materials and equipment is completely different from mine. That just goes to show how much variety there still is.
Let’s hope and work to ensure that this variety is preserved.
On the subject of ‘optimal’ gradation: with hard papers, the differentiation of grey tones is lost to some extent – very soft papers no longer produce a deep, rich black.
A general statement: the optimal paper has a (soft) gradient (due to the beautiful grey-scale differentiation) that still just manages to produce a deep, rich black.
‘Slightly softer’ papers have further advantages:
1. low extension factors when changing yellow filters (when working with the colour mixing head)
2. the possibility of giving the blacks a little extra depth with an extremely hard (partial) re-exposure
3. the best possible grey-scale differentiation
4. "suppresses" the film grain
I would be delighted if we could meet at the fineartforum in November 2013.
We are planning another “work presentation”. Everyone (after registering) will have the opportunity to present their images at a table and thus strike up a conversation with visitors. There is no better way to get qualified feedback on your images! Of course, visitors can also learn a great deal from this.
See you there :-)
Warm regards from Paderborn
Klaus
Bonderer
Surely everyone who works with 35mm film must experience something similar; that’s 24 or 36 exposures, and since no one ever has exactly the same lighting conditions, everyone is bound to end up with very different negatives. That’s certainly the case for me, given the way I take photos. I’ve never seen it as a flaw, and no film or paper developer can do anything about it. It works better with some and simply doesn’t with others.
There’s no absolute truth here. You have to like the pictures you take yourself, and if your friends and acquaintances like them too, so much the better. The main thing is that I enjoy it; that’s what matters most. And to be honest, I’ve never been into that S&M stuff and would never have submitted photos to colour photography competitions where they were then, in some cases, torn to shreds for the amusement of others at primary school level with pseudo-artistic drivel. And people had even paid for that. That’s how it is with 35mm and there’s no changing it. I rely on my F 3 and the EL 2, but I can manage with the FT 3 as well. If I want perfect negatives, the only options are a manual light meter, interchangeable medium-format or large-format magazines. With my style of photography, that wouldn’t be feasible, as things often have to happen very quickly. AF wasn’t any good either; the sharpness was off too often. The rest is down to split-grade and multi-grade paper and machine development. It never ceases to amaze me what machine development can still extract from some negatives. I’ve also stopped using different films; I now only use Tri-X from 200–6400 ISO in HCD New, but everyone has to decide that for themselves.
But... it’s possible I’m not taking the whole thing seriously enough. The only thing I take seriously is my work
I want to achieve the best possible result for me with the least possible effort, but first and foremost I want to have FUN
and if some negatives don’t turn out quite as I’d imagined, so be it – I stand by that.
The satisfaction with the result is worth the effort.
And thank goodness we all take photos differently in our own way; it’s a dreadful thought that we’d all be taking the same photos and following the same path. It would be such a crush, wouldn’t it?
piu58
> Who actually decided that 'special' gradient is the be-all and end-all?
>
> ?
>
> ?
>
> That’s nonsense too. A well-exposed negative should reproduce the full tonal range on ‘Special’ or, for all I care, on ‘Normal’ as well. However, that doesn’t mean this image reproduction is what the photographer wants. With such reproduction, local contrast falls by the wayside, which is particularly undesirable in landscape and architectural photography. In that case, you have to go for higher contrast and compensate for the differences in overall exposure.
>
> For portraits of women or children, on the other hand, ‘Special’ might be too harsh for certain visual concepts.
>
> ?
>
> As Klaus wrote: I’m holding a workshop on this in Paderborn. Mirko Boedecker will provide the materials; I already have them (many thanks to FOTOIMPEX). The workshop is therefore completely free of charge; the cost of materials is covered.
u_d
Halo Schwarzschild
?
?
?
Forget what I said earlier; perhaps I should have read/understood the thread first. Shame on me!?
However: I, in particular, have a lot of images where the subject matter doesn’t contain any black at all. If I enlarge them so that the ‘shadows’ are black, the whole image becomes too dark.
If you have a negative that’s really well defined in both the shadows and the highlights, then it should be possible to print it properly. I wouldn’t look for the fault in the negative.
Morte
Hello u_d,
Which Thornton? What’s the book called? Thanks!
u_d
Hi u_d,
Which Thornton? What’s the book called? Thanks!
Barry Thornton, *Edge of Darkness*, or *Elements*. Unfortunately, they’re only available second-hand now. The latter usually at exorbitant prices.
The person who used to run Thornton’s website seems to be keeping it up as a ‘Tribute to’, as I’ve just seen. There’s also an article there that’s an extract from Edge of Darkness, in which the curtain analogy appears:
http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barrythornton/unzone.htm
Morte
Thanks! By the way, you can download the book "Post Exposure" by Ctein here for free as a complete PDF; it also contains a lot of information on processing positives:
?
http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm
k-g
Thanks! By the way, you can download the book "Post Exposure" by Ctein here for free as a complete PDF; it also contains a lot of information on processing positives:
€
http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm
Many thanks for the link.
€
Karl-Gustaf
u_d
OK, let’s give it another go. Yesterday wasn’t my day. I hope Schwarzschildt is still reading this.
In the positive process, the key is to achieve detail in the relevant light areas, not necessarily in the highlights. These areas are dark in the negative. The thin areas in the negative – i.e. the shadows in the positive – are not a problem for the positive in terms of detail, provided they differ sufficiently from the base fog and background fog. That is why it is pointless to determine the exposure of the positive paper based on the shadows. You only do that to find out whether the exposure of the negative and the development were OK (how to do this is explained in the post by Thornton that I linked to). When performing an enlargement of positives, this is not the correct approach.
If you determine the exposure so that the relevant highlights in the positive have detail, you can only influence the dark areas in the positive via the gradient (for this, I drew on Thornton’s curtain analogy, which he used in a similar way, albeit in a slightly different context). If you have to go well below grade 2 to retain detail in the shadows, the negative is too hard. If you have to go well above grade 3 to achieve any blacks at all (should the subject contain any), the negative is too soft. In my – albeit non-authoritative – opinion, it is much easier to work with negatives that are too soft than with those that are too hard. Over-developed negatives are practically beyond rescue, especially if they are also subject to underexposure. That is why, beyond all the testing, it is usually a good idea to assume that in normal everyday situations a film only achieves half its nominal sensitivity and to shorten the development time by around 25–30%. The scene contrasts for which the nominal speed was determined are generally lower than what one typically encounters outdoors on average and over time. GF photographers may take a slightly different view, but with a 36-exposure black-and-white film, this is the more sensible strategy in my experience. You just mustn’t overdo it, otherwise you’ll end up with negatives that print well but lack detail in the mid-tones.
OK, I hope I’ve managed to sort that out now.
KlausWehner
Essentially, I agree with you entirely.
The requirements for an ideal negative that follow from this are:
1. sufficient exposure (generally more than the rated sensitivity)
2. developing the negatives to a contrast that allows them to be printed consistently at a gradient of 2–3.
That is really the whole secret to achieving good, rich-in-tone prints.
Since everyone works with different materials and equipment, everyone has to find their own way.
That isn’t always easy. Manufacturers’ specifications are occasionally misleading.
It helps to stick to tried-and-tested products and really get to grips with them.
Other photographers sometimes want something different: to experiment, do unusual things, try things out...
Personally, I find that very interesting – I view it with sympathy.
Naturally, they arrive at different results and conclusions.
But one should make a distinction here, otherwise misunderstandings arise.
Warm regards
Klaus
Morte
That’s really the whole secret to achieving good, high-contrast prints.
?
I would say: no, that’s the secret to obtaining balanced negatives. With prints, it’s a different story altogether.
For a long time, I struggled with pretty much the same problems as the thread starter. Because I, too, focused my attention on the blacks and tried to get the highlights under control using a gradient. The result: prints in which everything from deep blacks to pure whites was present, but which looked flat and lacked punch. I always had the feeling that they were ‘dazzling’ but not glowing. I asked myself: what did I do wrong? I’ve included all the tonal values in the image! – Until, at some point, whilst processing negatives in Photoshop, I discovered almost by chance that, strangely enough, the images began to glow all the more the darker I made them using the gamma and exposure sliders in Camera Raw – whilst simultaneously boosting the contrast significantly. What emerged was, to some extent, the effect I love so much in Koudelka’s images, for example: a bright/light area in the image that looks almost a bit ‘dirty’, rough, yet all the more vivid, with power, bite and character. I’m now trying to translate that into the darkroom – by using a higher gradient and a longer exposure. Something like that.
What I intended to say here is this: a “correct” negative is not enough for a beautiful print. The usual rules of thumb – that you must set the exposure time and gradient so that all tonal values are present in the image; that shadows must not become so dark that no detail is recognisable, and so on – are not enough either. My experience so far: have the courage to produce bold, even darker prints. Have the courage to embrace character, the courage to embrace shadows and the mysterious. Then you have a good chance of creating and revealing that very mystery – rather than producing bland, correct but ‘flat’ images – that you felt when standing before your subject during the shoot – if that was indeed the case.
I am eager to read the experiences of those of you with much longer darkroom experience on this subject.
?
P.S. u_d: it’s a shame you edited your rather interesting post yesterday with the curtain analogy. I found that comparison very vivid.
