</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SteveGangi @ Feb 23 2003, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Off the top of my pointy head, the risk in a thin (underexposed or underdeveloped) negative would be the loss of details in the shadows. I think most people here prefer a "fat" or dense negative for that reason. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Maybe you are used to your thin negs being the result of underexposure. For the most part the shadow detail develops in fairly quickly and the highlight density comes up with the extra developing time. Therefore with a properly exposed neg given an n-1 developing time the shadows pretty much stay the same while the highlight density is reduced by a certain amount. (think Zone System here)
Remember the old adage expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights? Thats what this is all about.
A couple ofpitfalls to using higher contrast paper...
-your enlarger needs to have really even illumination, the higher the contrast the more any unevenness shows.
- cleanliness is even more important, a speck at lower contrast may not be as noticeable as it is at higher contrast.