less shadow detail mght be 'more'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson

Yes, if you have enough oomph in your light source to actually shine through those dense highlights without going into reciprocity failure territory of the paper... I love my Leitz V35 enlarger, and it has taken a little while to get calibrated with my negatives such that I have enough contrast, but also able to stay under 2 minute exposure times one or two stops from wide open on the enlarger lens.

---

Thomas, I'm having trouble imagining a negative that requires a 2 minute enlarger exposure with a lens aperture of f5.6. I've been in photography professionally and can't remember making enlarger exposures more than 45 seconds or so under conditions where a neg was grossly overexposed.

Perhaps a typo? Or do you have a lot of filtering in the light path? Please explain.

It's a creative call. I have this engrained habit of always exposing for shadow detail. If I decide not to have it in my final print, I burn in the shadows or bump up the contrast. Aesthetically, for my images, I like shadow detail. My images can look too heavy if there are inky shadows. But one photographer that does dark shadows well is Ralph Gibson.
http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery.html

David, I agree with you and with Thomas' thoughts that shadow detail, for me, usually doesn't do a lot for overall intent and in most cases, in my opinion, detracts from the intent. Shadow detail usually adds too much unnecessary 'busyness' to my images. I like an image to convey the message, make the point, without a lot of 'background noise.' Just my take on what I like after 50 years in this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac

But one photographer that does dark shadows well is Ralph Gibson.
http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery.html

---

And Salgado!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred Aspen

Thomas, I'm having trouble imagining a negative that requires a 2 minute enlarger exposure with a lens aperture of f5.6. I've been in photography professionally and can't remember making enlarger exposures more than 45 seconds or so under conditions where a neg was grossly overexposed.

Perhaps a typo? Or do you have a lot of filtering in the light path? Please explain.

---

Not a typo. It's how long it would take with my Leitz Focomat V35 with a negative of what I consider a bit more than normal density. It takes a bit longer with the Minolta C3 enlarger, and a bit less time with the Omega Pro-Lab if I use the 150W bulb.
I print using contrast filtration on multigrade papers, the Omega is a condenser model where I use Ilford filters, the Leitz has a multi contrast head, and the Minolta is dichroic color head. The Leitz has a way of removing all of the filters in the light path, and that increases the printing speed by about one stop, compared to Grade 2 filtration.

Normal exposure time for me is between 22 seconds and 64 seconds at f/5.6 with a piece of 8x10 or 11x14 paper. If I developed my negatives to one stop denser (by overexposing one stop and not compensating in development), my enlarger exposures would be between 44 and 128 seconds. That's two minutes. What is so strange about that? I like what I get from fairly dense negatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac

It's a creative call. I have this engrained habit of always exposing for shadow detail. If I decide not to have it in my final print, I burn in the shadows or bump up the contrast. Aesthetically, for my images, I like shadow detail. My images can look too heavy if there are inky shadows. But one photographer that does dark shadows well is Ralph Gibson.
http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery.html

---

And Gibson both overexposes and overdevelops... Isn't that funny?!

I don't find Thomas's numbers strange. There are several variables. But I have quite a few images that can require highlight burning sequences in the minutes depending on the enlarger used. As long as your negative stays flat, no problem.

Thanks, Thomas, for taking the time for an explanation; I learn something new each day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael R 1974

I don't find Thomas's numbers strange. There are several variables. But I have quite a few images that can require highlight burning sequences in the minutes depending on the enlarger used. As long as your negative stays flat, no problem.

---

Michael, I do the same but quite often the lens is stopped down to f11 or so to allow time for manipulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson

And Gibson both overexposes and overdevelops... Isn't that funny?!

---

It's always good to have some shadow detail in the bank with your negs right? You might want to use it later. If you want no shadow detail by under exposing your film, you're sure of yourself. It's like doing a crossword puzzle with a pen. :)