Dense or thin neg for printing?

[ConnectingTheDots]

Which one is easiest to print?

 

[Chris101]

Um ... just right is the best. Too thin and you will lose detail in shadows, too dense and the highlights will block. So it depends on the picture. If you've got to have one or the other, I suppose too dense can be rescued more often. On the other hand, too thin often yields better mid-tones.

 

[f16sunshine]

Perfect is perfect but!.....Dense is easier to deal with than Thin.

It's a lot easier to put more light on the paper from the enlarger than to keep it off the paper.
I would always rather print from a dense negative than a thin one.
More time for paper exposure means more time to work on local issues and desired results.

 

[Highway 61]

Well exposed.

Yet in case of misexposure : dense is better for [wet darkroom] printing (for the very reasons clearly told by f16sunshine), thin is better for scanning (with a good dedicated film scanner).

 

[Charlie Lemay]

I think the goal of the Zone System is to arrive at the thinnest printable negative if you are using a condenser enlarger and a denser negative if you are using a cold light enlarger. I've done both with success in the past, but for many years now have gone for the former even though I only scan and do not use enlargers anymore. I have a simple version of the Zone System I call ZoneSimple that you can explore if you are inclined on my web site. www.zonesimple.net will get you there. There are free downloads if you want to try the process.

 

[Ronald M]

Thin and under exposed (lacking shadow detail) are to different things.

The best neg for printing is fully exposed and developed moderately so it prints on #2 paper. If you do this correctly, a few hours in dark is very productive. Every neg prints the same or close enough so you need not make multiple test strips.

 

[ConnectingTheDots]

thank you for all the usful information. from what I understand you'll get more options if you have a dense negative and longer times when enlarging.. also, I have a variable contrast enlarger. I'm assuming a dense contrasty neg would be better for that that style enlarger.

 

[FrankS]

🙁

thank you for all the usful information. from what I understand you'll get more options if you have a dense negative and longer times when enlarging.. also, I have a variable contrast enlarger. I'm assuming a dense contrasty neg would be better for that that style enlarger.

Dense is preferred over thin with any type of enlarger when wet printing.

 

[ConnectingTheDots]

no sad faces. it's all just a learning curve.

my non-website:http://instagram.com/connectingthedots

 

[FrankS]

no sad faces. it's all just a learning curve.

my non-website:http://instagram.com/connectingthedots

Sorry, I'm not sure how that sad face got there. I'm using an ipad and have clumsy fingers, that must be it.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

I think the "thinest printable negative" comes from Fred Picker's Zone IV book. Because he used the Zone System, the assumption is that you exposed for the amount of shadow detail you wanted and that the development time was adjusted so it was just dens enough not to blow out the highlights. Adams suggests 20% cut in development time for every stop you open up from the manufacturer's recommended ISO. Sio there is no fear of loosing shadow information, unless you underexpose it, which you would on a sunny day if you meter using the manufacturer's ISO.

 

[Rob-F]

Um ... just right is the best. Too thin and you will lose detail in shadows, too dense and the highlights will block. So it depends on the picture.

Well exposed.

Thin and under exposed (lacking shadow detail) are to different things.

The best neg for printing is fully exposed and developed moderately so it prints on #2 paper.

I agree best with the comments I have excerpted from the quoted posters. There's nothing more disappointing than to have a shot one was looking forward to, turn out under or over exposed or developed. We've all done it, and have all kicked ourselves! In my case, I'm thinking of two scenes I blew, and I absolutely knew better! An underexposed snow scene, when I knew to open up from my meter reading--but didn't. The other is a shot of a building in Colorado. I underexposed it. Too much reflected skylight fooling the meter--and me. And me, with all my incident light meters I could have cross-checked it with. I knew better.

A friend who is a photo instructor had the right answer. He said, "You just go on from there, keep moving forward."

 

[Vincent.G]

Generally, I find that printing from a dense negative is easier than from a thin one. If it is not there on the negative, there is nothing to print!

 

[FrankS]

It has been said that you can print an image from a negative that has been exposed from 1 stop under to 5 stops over (the ideal exposure).

Neg film is much more tolerant of over exposure than under exposure.

 

[Chris101]

thank you for all the usful information. from what I understand you'll get more options if you have a dense negative and longer times when enlarging.. also, I have a variable contrast enlarger. I'm assuming a dense contrasty neg would be better for that that style enlarger.

Aren't all enlargers variable contrast when used with appropriate filtration and VC paper(or MG paper as we say nowadays?)

 

[ConnectingTheDots]

Aren't all enlargers variable contrast when used with appropriate filtration and VC paper(or MG paper as we say nowadays?)

I suppose I meant diffuser head. the enlarger with the contrast filters built inside.

thanks for all the responses. taking them into consideration the next time I go shooting. 👍