Ronald M
Veteran
30% is way too much for D76. HC110 ??. I use negative 10% for 1/2 box speed.
I use 1C and V35 and print contrast is very close < 1/2 grade for same negative.
You will now see the difference in rendering between 1C and V35. End points are the same, but shadows have less contrast but more detail in highlights with V35. Opposite with 1C.
More pronounced if you cut time 5% MORE for 1C, making two negs, and print proper neg in each enlarger.
You will probably have to get short neck bulbs for 1C so run the the center post down all the way. Center the bulb by trial and error or enlarging meter. Filaments are not always
centered so centering the bulb does not work. Put the meter in the corners and aim it toward the lens.
Ilford has a great video on split contrast printing on you tube. After 60 years, I finally learned and now make better prints than ever.
I use 1C and V35 and print contrast is very close < 1/2 grade for same negative.
You will now see the difference in rendering between 1C and V35. End points are the same, but shadows have less contrast but more detail in highlights with V35. Opposite with 1C.
More pronounced if you cut time 5% MORE for 1C, making two negs, and print proper neg in each enlarger.
You will probably have to get short neck bulbs for 1C so run the the center post down all the way. Center the bulb by trial and error or enlarging meter. Filaments are not always
centered so centering the bulb does not work. Put the meter in the corners and aim it toward the lens.
Ilford has a great video on split contrast printing on you tube. After 60 years, I finally learned and now make better prints than ever.
Freakscene
Obscure member
You are overthinking things. Kodak's recommendation about -30% development for 'condenser enlargers' has been on their charts since at least the early 1950s. Films have changed a lot since then. There is also a HUGE continuum of light sources between completely collimated (point source), though varying levels of 'condenser' illumination, to 'diffusion' (like a durst Laborator 1200) to totally diffuse (cold light) enlargers. I have used every type, and can guarantee you if you develop to a normal contrast index you'll be able to make a good print.
Ctein wrote an article in Photo Techniques in the late 90s or early 00s showing what happened - he found that there was some but relatively moderate contrast difference, but that once contrast was adjusted to be equal the distribution of tones differed. I found this also, and have always had both condenser and diffusion enlargers for different looks for this reason. Condenser enlargers, once contrast is adjusted to be equal, print lower mid-tones and shadows darker than diffuse light sources. Sometimes it looks good, sometimes it doesn't. For my own work I always chose something in the middle like a Leitz or Durst condenser enlarger that has a large rounded reflecting area above the bulb that diffuses the light somewhat, and a Durst diffusion enlarger that has a mirror above the diffuser and produces light that is more directed than a cold light but opens the shadows up a lot in comparison to a condenser enlarger and a bit more than a V35.
Shoot, print, adjust. It works, really.
Marty
Ctein wrote an article in Photo Techniques in the late 90s or early 00s showing what happened - he found that there was some but relatively moderate contrast difference, but that once contrast was adjusted to be equal the distribution of tones differed. I found this also, and have always had both condenser and diffusion enlargers for different looks for this reason. Condenser enlargers, once contrast is adjusted to be equal, print lower mid-tones and shadows darker than diffuse light sources. Sometimes it looks good, sometimes it doesn't. For my own work I always chose something in the middle like a Leitz or Durst condenser enlarger that has a large rounded reflecting area above the bulb that diffuses the light somewhat, and a Durst diffusion enlarger that has a mirror above the diffuser and produces light that is more directed than a cold light but opens the shadows up a lot in comparison to a condenser enlarger and a bit more than a V35.
Shoot, print, adjust. It works, really.
Marty
thebelbo
Member
Thanks everyone for this, I think the conclusion is that it's probably different but I get the sense that -30% is definitely on the high side and needs to be toned down. At the end as you say, it's just a starting point for further adjusting. Thanks for sharing!
thebelbo
Member
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
I think you need to do some testing, like it or not. Fine-tune along the road if necessary. What I'll write below has been said before but not everybody is aware of it. Not too much film is required for testing as you'll see below.
Set your enlarger for an 11x14 size print, focused. Insert a blank negative, make a teststrip and decide on minimum exposed strip showing maximum black. Use 1.5 or 2 sec exposure steps. I do this with a metronome so I don't have to worry about warming up of the light source, it will give a stable output. You may have to try different diafragm settings. If it's the fifth strip, your chosen time would be 5x2=10 secs- I subtract a sec from that value. (to avoid overdeveloping of the film, it works for me))
Keep enlargement size, diafragm and found exposure time unchanged troughout the subsequent testing.
Remove blank negative and insert testnegative, recheck focus.
Making a test negative: I throw a light colored towel over a chair on sunny day, in my back yard. Expose the way you would normally do and add some 1 stop over- and one stop under exposed shots, separated by a blank shot, a sky shot or whatever. When done advance 2 more frames (blank shots).
Away from bright light remove camera lens and open shutter with B setting, keep it pressed in, and stick a piece of scotch tape on the now visible film. Let go of B ,replace lens, rewind film, and in darkroom feel for the scotch tape, that's where you cut the film, now you have your test piece and a still usable piece of flm in it's cassette.
Develop test piece acc to manufacturer's suggestion.
Make an 8x10" print of each of the 3 differently exposed negatives, with the unchanged enlarger/diafragm/exposure time settings described above. No filter. The towel and space under the chair should be visible in the print, that's essential.
The prints: the towel material and it's folds should be just recognizable as such: this is determined by your film development time. If it's too light, unrecognizable as cloth, then develop 10-20% shorter and vice versa.
The space under the chair (dark shadow) should show just visible detail. If not, just black, then increase exposure (lower ISO) and vice versa.
This procedure should take away any concern about dev. time geared for condenser, dichro or whatever. Ansel Adams gave zone VIII negative density suggestions and indeed for condenser he advised lower. That's 60 years ago. Use today's materials, in your own enlarger. Final print look is also influenced by choice of paper, your paper developer, dev. time, toning etc. And on overcast days you may want to dev your film a bit longer, see what happens to tonal separation etc etc.
Thanks for reading.
Set your enlarger for an 11x14 size print, focused. Insert a blank negative, make a teststrip and decide on minimum exposed strip showing maximum black. Use 1.5 or 2 sec exposure steps. I do this with a metronome so I don't have to worry about warming up of the light source, it will give a stable output. You may have to try different diafragm settings. If it's the fifth strip, your chosen time would be 5x2=10 secs- I subtract a sec from that value. (to avoid overdeveloping of the film, it works for me))
Keep enlargement size, diafragm and found exposure time unchanged troughout the subsequent testing.
Remove blank negative and insert testnegative, recheck focus.
Making a test negative: I throw a light colored towel over a chair on sunny day, in my back yard. Expose the way you would normally do and add some 1 stop over- and one stop under exposed shots, separated by a blank shot, a sky shot or whatever. When done advance 2 more frames (blank shots).
Away from bright light remove camera lens and open shutter with B setting, keep it pressed in, and stick a piece of scotch tape on the now visible film. Let go of B ,replace lens, rewind film, and in darkroom feel for the scotch tape, that's where you cut the film, now you have your test piece and a still usable piece of flm in it's cassette.
Develop test piece acc to manufacturer's suggestion.
Make an 8x10" print of each of the 3 differently exposed negatives, with the unchanged enlarger/diafragm/exposure time settings described above. No filter. The towel and space under the chair should be visible in the print, that's essential.
The prints: the towel material and it's folds should be just recognizable as such: this is determined by your film development time. If it's too light, unrecognizable as cloth, then develop 10-20% shorter and vice versa.
The space under the chair (dark shadow) should show just visible detail. If not, just black, then increase exposure (lower ISO) and vice versa.
This procedure should take away any concern about dev. time geared for condenser, dichro or whatever. Ansel Adams gave zone VIII negative density suggestions and indeed for condenser he advised lower. That's 60 years ago. Use today's materials, in your own enlarger. Final print look is also influenced by choice of paper, your paper developer, dev. time, toning etc. And on overcast days you may want to dev your film a bit longer, see what happens to tonal separation etc etc.
Thanks for reading.
thebelbo
Member
That's really useful, thanks!
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
You're welcome thebelbo
I should have mentioned that the set-up and the decided upon (the test result) exposure time should be kept for reference. Because you can/should use them to make your contact sheets. Assuming that you used the same film (different films have usually different base + fog density, having an effect on the testing procedure , it's result).
I should have mentioned that the set-up and the decided upon (the test result) exposure time should be kept for reference. Because you can/should use them to make your contact sheets. Assuming that you used the same film (different films have usually different base + fog density, having an effect on the testing procedure , it's result).