Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
Shawn, here's a cleaner version showing only one curve of approximately 'normal' contrast from the series above.

To make it more relatable I changed the labeling on the X-axis and added "Zone" indicators.

What you have is a very straight curve (constant contrast) up to around Zone VIII. After that contrast increases and remains relatively straight until around Zone XII with a gradual shouldering (reduction in contrast) thereafter.

In the real world this means you have a pretty straight line until you get into the high highlights where you have a lot of local contrast. If you have those densities in the negative, it would take some extra burning in to bring them into the print. Not really a big deal. The extra contrast in the extreme highlights would tend to offset the compression in the toe of the paper. Basically all I'm saying is you'd have to do more burning in, but it would be slightly easier to retain local contrast (detail) in the highlights if you're burning them down at lower grades.

Fuji Acros has a similar curve, with a less gradual shoulder.

This type of curve could be a better candidate for compensating and other extreme contraction procedures because since the film inherently has high highlight contrast, it can stand more contraction without completely flattening the highlights.

Note different people might like or dislike a given curve shape so to some extent this is all subjective.

It is also important to note if you're regularly using TMY-2 you've probably subconciously adapted your printing to the curve anyway, so nothing to worry about - unless it is not the normal curve for the film.
Excellent. Thank you for laying that out there, Michael. I really appreciate it. This makes total sense. I will often times make a couple of test sheets with my highlights burned in at different grades and pick what I like the best, so I would definitely be compensating for any required change due to increased contrast in the highlights.