I ought to mention, as an addendum to my previous post, that the single most important factor is the exposure. Getting that wrong makes it really hard, and it's easy to get it wrong. That just as often results from trying to second guess the scene, trying to control too much, as it does from simple error.
In my experience, I've found that for normal looking scenes (not the Ansel's leaves, the Minor White stuff, etc.) is is quite rare that anything more than a +1 is really needed. I'm always suspicious when my reasoning suggests a +2, although it does happen sometimes. +2 and above attenuates the values, possibly producing a technically great print that just doesn't look right.
The reason I suggested brackets above isn't to save your skin, it's to assist in dealing with learning. Try some with your rationale recorded, then see how they print. You can bracket development, too.
One more: Slower films show contrast gradients more clearly and generally better than faster ones in producing enhanced contrasts, even with normal development. I can't recommend Edwal 12 too highly. It's great for this kind of thing.
It was alluded to a bit in the other thread, in regard to AA's examples, and I'm wondering if you also aren't expecting a lot from an un-manipulated print.
Here are scans of a straight print (I think it scanned a little hot), arrived at to establish the base exposure for this negative, and the print after dodging and burning.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
It can be tough, if not impossible, to get a lot of expansion into a neg that is shot in *totally* flat conditions. Additionally, sharp detail can be hard to render in these situations, due to the totally even and diffused light everywhere. Therefore even if you tweak things to add more contrast, it can look rather odd in the end, with very flat dark areas of the print. No matter how much contrast you add or remove, you are still stuck with the basic quality of light that existed at the scene. So, it would probably be best to really think long and hard about how you want to render the scene, keeping in mind that no matter what you do, you will not get the ultra-sharp, ultra detailed look that comes from a certain quality of light that just cannot be present in a flat lighting situation. Every artist has a different idea of what he or she wants to print. I would personally think that this kind of scene would scream to be printed as a beautiful long-scaled midtoned print, giving up on the standard black-to-white print.
But as long as there is about three "stops" at the scene of exposure, you can get a somewhat "normal-looking" print if you are a good printer. What you want to do is make an exposure that will place the range of luminances at the scene (let's say three "stops" in this example) on a strip of your S curve that will allow you to add the most contrast with development and toning, then develop to N+2, if you can get there without introducing what you consider to be unacceptable levels of fog and grain (the larger the format the better, for this reason), and then tone the neg in a strong selenium bath to push it even farther.
When you make this exposure, however, you also have to consider where you want your last detail (III) and last texture (II) to be on the print. If you want texture on something, you don't want to place it below II. If you want detail, you don't want to place it below III. It would add the most contrast if you were to place the darkest luminance in the scene on zone 0 or I, but you would lose detail and texture at the expense of this contrast. It all comes down to where you want to make the compromises, as they cannot be avoided.
Personally, if I were shooting for a versatile negative in a scene with a range of luminances that was three "stops", this is what I would do:
1. Find the darkest area of the scene where I want texture on the print. Instead of placing this on zone II, I would place it on zone III, as I know for sure that I will have to print on a hard paper, which will push it down in printing. Having it on zone III will not maximize contrast index of the neg, because it moves the whole luminance range up the S curve. However, it will give you enough meat to manipulate the local contrast in this area via dodging and burning when you go to print. Like I said, it's a balancing act. Anything you do that is ideal for one effect will not be ideal for another.
2. This would make the highest luminance value at the scene fall on V. I know with my favorite zone system film, with a combination of development and toning, I can get darned near a net +3, which would have a zone V fall end up at a near zone VIII. So I would develop to N+2, which is as far as I have tested for, and then tone.
3. I would end up with a neg that should theoretically print from zones III to near-VIII with normal printing on my target paper, plus any shadow values that [hopefully] fell below those that I placed on III. However, the extreme development will also have raised the value of that zone III placement a bit. But that is OK, because this just means I can print on an even harder paper without losing that area.
All of this is assuming a wanted a fairly normal looking print, or at least just a versatile neg.
The reason I have had no problems getting to N+2, while others cannot, is that my target paper for my development testing is a grade 3, not a grade 2. I do this so I can either go up one grade or down one grade in printing, given the limited selection of grades now available. I like having the option of one grade below the target paper. This means that my normal development is flatter than is traditional, so my N+s are flatter as well. This means that what I call my N+2 is the same as what most would call N+1. If I tested for it, I bet I could get up to an N+2.5 (or maybe even N+3?) with development alone. I love HP5!
What a wonderfully explicit answer- makes total sense.
Thanks
Tim
__________________ If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso
Thank you as well. these are all great insights for me. I feel I have some excellent tools now to tackle these situations, once I finish getting my basics under control. I'm using Pyrocat HD, and Steve Sherman has been very kind in emailing me his VC articles on reduced agitation techniques. I have great tools in hand indeed
Tim
__________________ If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso
"3. I would end up with a neg that should theoretically print from zones III to near-VIII with normal printing on my target paper, plus any shadow values that [hopefully] fell below those that I placed on III. However, the extreme development will also have raised the value of that zone III placement a bit. But that is OK, because this just means I can print on an even harder paper without losing that area."
The straight print would not be a full-scale print, but the neg would be such that you*could* get one with manipulation in printing. III - VIII is not full scale. If I wanted a true full-scale print, I would have to print on a harder paper...to bump the darks down and the lights up. I would also have to manipulate the print, as everyone is stressing.
Then again, don't just aim for a full-scale print all the time. Aim for the print you want.
__________________
2F/2F
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
One very effective method which has not been mentioned is reduced agitation with very dilute developer solutions. This method increases micro contrast and allows for both expansion and contraction development.
Steve Sherman has championed this type of development and published two articles on the subject in View Camera a couple of years ago. He has also discussed the issue on this forum on several occassions.
There is some great processing info here for contrast that I am going to adapt to my own routines as needed. Especially once I have my 4x5 setup really up and running. Thank you for the remarks, all.
It can be tough, if not impossible, to get a lot of expansion into a neg that is shot in *totally* flat conditions. Additionally, sharp detail can be hard to render in these situations, due to the totally even and diffused light everywhere. Therefore even if you tweak things to add more contrast, it can look rather odd in the end, with very flat dark areas of the print. No matter how much contrast you add or remove, you are still stuck with the basic quality of light that existed at the scene.
The reason I have had no problems getting to N+2, while others cannot, is that my target paper for my development testing is a grade 3, not a grade 2. I do this so I can either go up one grade or down one grade in printing, given the limited selection of grades now available. I like having the option of one grade below the target paper. This means that my normal development is flatter than is traditional, so my N+s are flatter as well. This means that what I call my N+2 is the same as what most would call N+1. If I tested for it, I bet I could get up to an N+2.5 (or maybe even N+3?) with development alone. I love HP5!
Tim,
The first paragraph here is exacting what I am talking about with regard to Reduced Agitation development. These types of scenes can be portrayed with a full range of tonalities. You must understand that this type development is unlike any other method of development and therefore foreign to those who have never used the process.
With almost all B&W photography, contrast is a function of subject reflectance and the intensity of light which strikes the subject. Conventionally, the only means to expand contrast is to expose less and develop more, harder contrast papers and to lesser degrees chemistry, reciprocity and filtration can have a small effect.
With this form of development, contrast is not dependent on light intensity or exposure. Contrast or "micro contrast" (which gives the impression of contrast) will be a function of developer exhaustion and agitation intervals.
I have a good friend who accuses the process of "destroying the original integrity of the scene, just like Photoshop." I respond by saying I know of no computer which works in wet chemistry.
The second paragraph talks about HP5 and it contrast expanding properties, HP5 by design is a lower contrast film than many modern films. Tri-X, FP-4, Efke 100 all have a higher contrast index built into them at the time of manufacture. While nothing has the contrast building capabilities of T Max films. In other words they have a shorter toe and longer straight line to allow contrast to expand.
The beauty of using either FP 4 or T Max with reduced agitation dev. is the longer the straight line the the more you can expand contrast and the more you can compress contrast without losing vital micro contrast.
Reduced Agitation dev. is not an easy process to master, it is more unpredictable than other more benign methods of development. However, when mastered you will be able to photograph any scene in any lighting conditions and control the end result to a greater degree than any other method I know of. I realize this is a brash statement to make, but like they say "when you can back it up it really isn't bragging".
__________________ Real Photographs are Born Wet !
Thanks again everybody. Sandy, I'm linking to a thread on the LF site, if you don't mind. It has to do with your recommendations for dilutions for different types of reduced agitation (I posted a question for you over there pertaining to these recommendations)- It may be useful to those here who use Pyrocat HD. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...371#post367371
Tim
__________________ If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso
Linear Mode
