Very Low Contrast

Becoming

Becoming

Established
Local time
12:08 PM
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
88
Location
Dorset, U.K.
View My Gallery
Hello there, I was wondering if anyone here could give me a little advice.

I have never developed any of my own negatives before but plan on starting very soon. I want to achieve images that are very low contrast, basically made up of grey tones with no definite white or black. Are there any particular techniques that will help me with this? I vaguely remember reading something about very minimal agitation but I am probably wrong. I have been shooting Delta 3200 and Neopan 1600.

Am I completely wrong in thinking this is done at the developing stage and not in printing? 😱

Thank you,

MDB
 
From my experience, Neopan 1600 can become quite high contrast attention is not paid to particulars in the developing process.

I don't have the authority to class it as an inherently high contrast film, because that would also depend on factors like lens and developer choice.

If you want a low contrast image try shooting it at EI: 800, in D76 1:1 for 7 minutes. Agitate for the 1st 50 seconds (Fuji recommends the whole minute but I found that unnecessary and I achieve even development minus surge marks), then 1 agitation at the start of each minute there after.

Keep the temperature down, to just below 20C. Agitation, time duration and temperature control will ensure control over contrast. The more you agitate this film the more contrast can build rapidly.

For EI: 1600, follow the same methodology above but for a time of 8 1/2 minutes.

I don't have enough experience with Delta 3200 to warrant giving any advice. I have noticed however from the few rolls that I have shot, that the grain is larger than Neopan 1600 when shot at the same EI. But then again, that result could have been influenced by my choice of developer!

Good luck,
Jaans
 
As you're probably aware, lens choice can have an incredible effect on contrast. Older lenses, especially uncoated and/or hazy lenses will give you lots of grays. I am a fan of the Summar 50 /2 and the Summarit 50 /1.5 for this look.

I find Tri-X, underexposed, heavy on the mid-tones.

Also, this may be counterintuitive, but working in digital, with careful attention to post-processing, might help you refine your concept of the exact look you wish to achieve. That would make it easier to judge and modify the results you get with film.
 
It will really depend on several factors; lens, developing time and PP. Older lenses pre war type can be low in contrast but not the newer models. 10-15% lesser developing time can give a low contrast look as well, tweak contrast in Photoshop if you use digital workflow in processing.
 
charjohncarter said:
Cut the box speed in half, expose normally for half the ISO. Shoot on a dull day, and underdevelop, 20-25%.
Click to expand...

If one cuts both the film speed and underdevelops, the result will be lots of empty shadows (read: clear film). You've got to have information on the film to make a print.

I was taught, in spot metering/zone system speak, to expose the important shadows in zone V or VI - a two to three stop OVERexposure - and then underdevelop. With the underdevelopment necessary for a low contrast image, the shadows will drop in value, but retain some detail. The goal would be to make a relatively higher key print, but one that contains all the detail to make a rich image.

Becoming, you may want to get a copy of Bruce Barnbaum's text, "The Art of Photography". Bruce is a superb printer and an excellent, down-to-earth teacher. He discusses the techniques for properly exposing and developing film, and much more of what he terms "departures from reality".

BTW, I think you might want to first learn to expose and develop in order to create normal, full range negatives before working on your departures from reality. You need to know how YOUR film, ISO, developer, water, time and agitation method works to produce normal negatives as a starting point for variation from the norm.
 
HMFriedman said:
If one cuts both the film speed and underdevelops, the result will be lots of empty shadows (read: clear film).
Click to expand...

You may be thinking backwards on this one. He's talking about cutting film speed (lower ISO), which gives more exposure, not cutting exposure. That plus underdevelopment will indeed give low contrast negs.

I'm wondering, though, if the OP isn't confusing high key (very few true blacks, lots of subtle light tones) with low contrast. Prints with no white or black normally just look muddy. The easiest route to high key is (a) subjects with a low brightness range; (b) minimal exposure (double the box speed or more, i.e. FP4 at 250, and I'd go for 400) and (c) long development for maximum negative contrast. Then print on soft paper (1, 0, 00). See Mortensen's work for examples.

The OP might also find this module n negative developmemt useful: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps neg development 1.html

Cheers,

R.
 
Thanks a lot for your input everyone. It seems one of the highlights of RFF is the way people are always willing to help out a new starter or anyone with any queries. Go RFF!

Thank you HMFriedman I will definitely check out The Art of Photography. You are right, I will learn how to develop more standard negatives before exploring other avenues first.

Thanks Roger for the information on high key and the link.

The particular aesthetic I have in my mind’s eye is proving quite difficult to explain but again I thank everyone again for all your input. If I find an example of someone’s work that is similar to what I'm looking for I'll post it here to clarify a little.

MDB

PS: Sorry Pablito, I didn't realise I had even changed the font colour from the default. I'll watch out for that next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom