Contacts vs. Enlargements

[Thomas Bertilsson]

1. The more you dilute your developer, the longer you need to develop the film.
2. The longer you develop your film, the more shadow detail you're going to get.
3. Shadow detail = film speed.

[kq6up]

Ha. Well, your choice then. Quality and consistency, or getting done quickly. Up to you, good buddy.

That's funny. You posted this just as I was typing up my results from last nights printing session. I am a little more comfortable with tray processing now than when I first started doing it. I absolutely hated sitting in a pitch black room. I like the glow of the safe-light, but the dark bathroom was like I sensory deprivation tank :o)

I have tried printing by inspection. It seems fun, but I have a more sensiometric approach than a gut approach. The zone system seems contrary to printing by inspection. All though I am not saying that one is better than the other.

Chris

[kq6up]

1. The more you dilute your developer, the longer you need to develop the film.
2. The longer you develop your film, the more shadow detail you're going to get.
3. Shadow detail = film speed.

Thanks, Thom. Indeed that makes sense to me. If I go with the long dev time with the dilute developer, should I still rate the film at EI50?

Thanks,
Chris Maness

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Chris,

You should rate the film at whatever speed gives you the amount of shadow detail you want. There is no right and wrong.
Try shooting a roll at 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, and 100. Develop the film, print the negatives, and see which gives you the amount of shadow detail you want. After you pick that, shoot one roll at your favored speed, and now dial in the rest of the tone spectrum by adjusting developing time. Once again, print the negs to see where they fall into place without much effort.

Hope that helps.

- Thomas

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I hate tray developing too, so I quit using sheets. But eventually I think you get used to it. I recommend bringing music. Loud good music. Makes it happen much faster.

That's funny. You posted this just as I was typing up my results from last nights printing session. I am a little more comfortable with tray processing now than when I first started doing it. I absolutely hated sitting in a pitch black room. I like the glow of the safe-light, but the dark bathroom was like I sensory deprivation tank :o)

I have tried printing by inspection. It seems fun, but I have a more sensiometric approach than a gut approach. The zone system seems contrary to printing by inspection. All though I am not saying that one is better than the other.

Chris

[kq6up]

I hate tray developing too, so I quit using sheets. But eventually I think you get used to it. I recommend bringing music. Loud good music. Makes it happen much faster.

I have a special doo dad to soup six 4x5 sheets at a time in daylight in a paterson tank. I am now shooting 8x10, and can do one sheet at a time in a color print drum. However, I am forced to do tray if I have more than one sheet.

Chris

[kq6up]

Ok, I am back with results. IE50 is still the best speed, and I arrived at a developing time of 20'30" for 1:50 Rodinal. I agitate by shuffling through the stack once per minute per the technique detailed in A. Adams the negative. I have two sheets left that I am going to soup @ 1:25 for 10'15", and compare the tonality. I generally develop at 75F, so I can multiply a factor of .72 to the dev time. This makes it a little more bearable sitting in the dark -- along with Jimi Hendrix "Live at Monterrey".

I get a good contact print from these negs with no contrast filter. However, I like the tone a little better if I dev N-1, and compensate with a filter. The difference is VERY subtle, it has a more antique look to it, and the N processed negative starts to look really linear (like TMAX).

Regards,
Chris Maness

[c6h6o3]

What yields better shadow detail is exposure and in my experience nothing else does that. What increases or reduces highlight density at a given exposure is development. So my advice to you is to expose more and develop less.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ok, I am back with results. IE50 is still the best speed, and I arrived at a developing time of 20'30" for 1:50 Rodinal. I agitate by shuffling through the stack once per minute per the technique detailed in A. Adams the negative. I have two sheets left that I am going to soup @ 1:25 for 10'15", and compare the tonality. I generally develop at 75F, so I can multiply a factor of .72 to the dev time. This makes it a little more bearable sitting in the dark -- along with Jimi Hendrix "Live at Monterrey".

I get a good contact print from these negs with no contrast filter. However, I like the tone a little better if I dev N-1, and compensate with a filter. The difference is VERY subtle, it has a more antique look to it, and the N processed negative starts to look really linear (like TMAX).

Regards,
Chris Maness

Excellent. Sounds like you found your way with it, and that's all that really matters.

I just figured out how to shoot Tri-X and using PMK developer, and I am nowhere near the times recommended anywhere else. It just goes to prove how important SOME individual testing is in order to make prints that we're happy with.

Good work!

[Jed Freudenthal]

Does printing via contact have a different tonal response curve with the same film/paper/developer than enlarging? I have great results with Fomapan 100 and Rodinal with roll film. However, when I contact print my 8x10's the dark shadows look really muddy. The overall contrast seem to be ok, but the local contrast in the dark areas are murky. I am afraid if I soup it longer I will just blow the highlights.

Would rating the film at a lower speed solve this? The 100 speed I rate the film is perfect for the roll film. The sheet film version of Fomapan 100 (Arista EDU Ultra) behaves like a totally different film so far. I am thinking at EI100 most of the shadows are falling in the toe. Maybe rate it at EI50 or even EI25?

I have over exposed this film by forgetting to stop down (by 5 stops) and pull N-1 and they scan much better. I have not tried to print these as the overall contrast seems to be too low. I think I will try tonight as I might be surprised by the result. Maybe I will have to print at a higher grade, but the local contrast might be more tame.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

Examine the 8x10" negatives with a magnifying glass in the shadows. Is it still murky? Or is it thin with small black specks? If this is the case, the explanation is an optical effect. Better optics in the 8x10" situation. And the better optics will result in a poor image as a result of the optical quality of our eyes. The solution is then to develop in such a way that the detailed information disappears. Or decrease the exposure to get rid of the details in the shadow. However, in this case, you are not using the advantage of 8x10".

Jed