thebelbo
Member
Hi,
I'm not an expert but have been shooting film for some time (shooting at rated speed and developing by the book). Reviewing my negatives I've realised that I'm not getting enough shadow detail: reading about "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights" I've decided to start shooting at half of rated speed and develop less time. In that respect I've shot some FP4+ at EI 64.
I'm a bit puzzled with development time however: the guidance I had read was to develop for -15% time if shooting at half the rated film speed, however looking at the Ilford recommendation for developing FP4+ shot at EI 64 with HC-110 dilution B they recommend a much more significant reduction on development time (they recommend 6' for FP4+ shot at EI 64 vs 9' for FP4+ shot at EI 125, which is a 30% reduction on development time).
I'm wondering what would the recommended approach be, thanks in advance and apologies if this is too basic of a question.
I'm not an expert but have been shooting film for some time (shooting at rated speed and developing by the book). Reviewing my negatives I've realised that I'm not getting enough shadow detail: reading about "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights" I've decided to start shooting at half of rated speed and develop less time. In that respect I've shot some FP4+ at EI 64.
I'm a bit puzzled with development time however: the guidance I had read was to develop for -15% time if shooting at half the rated film speed, however looking at the Ilford recommendation for developing FP4+ shot at EI 64 with HC-110 dilution B they recommend a much more significant reduction on development time (they recommend 6' for FP4+ shot at EI 64 vs 9' for FP4+ shot at EI 125, which is a 30% reduction on development time).
I'm wondering what would the recommended approach be, thanks in advance and apologies if this is too basic of a question.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You don't develop for shadow detail, you set your exposure to get shadow detail. Reducing developing time lowers contrast.
The reason your films look underexposed when shot at box speed and developed normally is that the speed marked on the box is just a marketing number. The REAL speed of the film depends on what developer you use. The real speed of Tmax 400 in D-76, for example, is only 320. That's only a 1/3 stop difference but is is a visible difference if you want the best image quality possible.
Some developer-film combinations GREATLY reduce speed. While Fomapan 100 gives a true speed of 100 in D076, it gives a true speed of 40 in PMK.
The reason your films look underexposed when shot at box speed and developed normally is that the speed marked on the box is just a marketing number. The REAL speed of the film depends on what developer you use. The real speed of Tmax 400 in D-76, for example, is only 320. That's only a 1/3 stop difference but is is a visible difference if you want the best image quality possible.
Some developer-film combinations GREATLY reduce speed. While Fomapan 100 gives a true speed of 100 in D076, it gives a true speed of 40 in PMK.
rlouzan
Well-known
Real speed aka Exposure Index (EI)
thebelbo
Member
Thanks a lot for your answer Christopher, I've done some reading and understand that I need to do some film+developer testing to establish the real film speed. I'm a bit puzzled in-terms of what times to use for development now that I've shot it at EI200. There are a lot of contradicting information available, the Massive development chart advises a -30% vs shooting it at 400, so I'm leaning towards using that as the starting point, thanks!
Pete B
Well-known
What makes you think you're under exposing your negatives?
Pete
Pete
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Exactly. The time-honored rule is, "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.' So I have only one thing to add: Where shadows are important, we must take care not to blow out the highlights. And since we develop for the highlights, then when the shadows are important we must hold back development so as not to make dense highlights. So I think I would say, developing for shadows call for a soft development that will allow printing with good shadow detail without blowing the highlights.
Oh, just one more thing. Shooting with lower contrast lenses helps.
PKR
Veteran
Expose for shadows, develop for highlights.
I learned this 50 years ago and, it's always worked for me.
Has this now changed?
https://www.amazon.com/Zone-System-Manual-Previsualize-Pictures/dp/B000LCYQJ8
I learned this 50 years ago and, it's always worked for me.
Has this now changed?
https://www.amazon.com/Zone-System-Manual-Previsualize-Pictures/dp/B000LCYQJ8
Pete B
Well-known
As above, expose for shadows but develop for the contrast/dynamic range of the scene (i.e. Develop so as not to blowout highlights). Longer development gives more contrast. But why do you think you are underexposing your negatives? Could it be you have a scanning issue? Is it the type of scene you photograph? Give us more insight into your problem. You might be barking up the wrong tree.
Pete
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
The reason that you "expose for the shadows" is that you want your film to record the darkest important detail that there is in your scene. Or, put another way, "you can't print what ain't there." You "develop for the highlights" because if you overdevelop your film you will never be able to print through the blown highlights. By overdeveloping, you will have pushed the highlight detail off the curve and you won't be able to print it either. The maxim is supposed to preserve the dynamic range in your film from the darkest grey that contains detail to brightest white that contains detail.
I suggest that you use a roll of film to do a speed test with whatever developer you like. Include an 18% gray card in your scene. Go from two stops under exposure, through what your meter tells you is a perfect exposure, through two stops over exposure, in 1/3 stop increments. Develop as you normally do.
Now make a contact sheet. Figure out how much exposure your chosen paper needs to get your first true black. (That is: the first increment on your test strip where you can't tell the difference between one exposure and the next on the negative edge.) That's your film base plus fog for the contact sheet. Now you can expose your entire strip of test negatives at that exposure to get a contact sheet that will give you some real information.
Find the grey card in your (now properly printed) contact sheet that matches the actual card's grey in good light. See whether that frame is under-exposed or over-exposed according to your original metering scheme. Count how many 1/3 stop increments you are from your "proper" exposure. That' s your actual film speed for that brand of film and that developer/time combination.
I suggest that you use a roll of film to do a speed test with whatever developer you like. Include an 18% gray card in your scene. Go from two stops under exposure, through what your meter tells you is a perfect exposure, through two stops over exposure, in 1/3 stop increments. Develop as you normally do.
Now make a contact sheet. Figure out how much exposure your chosen paper needs to get your first true black. (That is: the first increment on your test strip where you can't tell the difference between one exposure and the next on the negative edge.) That's your film base plus fog for the contact sheet. Now you can expose your entire strip of test negatives at that exposure to get a contact sheet that will give you some real information.
Find the grey card in your (now properly printed) contact sheet that matches the actual card's grey in good light. See whether that frame is under-exposed or over-exposed according to your original metering scheme. Count how many 1/3 stop increments you are from your "proper" exposure. That' s your actual film speed for that brand of film and that developer/time combination.
charjohncarter
Veteran
OK, everyone has their own method and newcomers should read and evaluate and try out different methods of exposure, EI, agitation and development. That sounds like four variables; so how do you do it?
When I started my quest to achieve more shadow detail all I had was a Spotmatic with an onboard meter. So the old 'saw' of expose for the shadows and develop for highlights left me with only one option: change EI to increase shadow detail. Sounds easy but in Panama it was a little hard compared to even sunny California.
Now, I cut my EI to 1/2 the box speed, cut development by very little and agitate minimally. The minimal agitation holds down the blowouts of the highlights. Now a lot of people may not like this, but it works for my Pentax Spotmatic and many other metered cameras that I have.
In closing you have to find the box where everything works for you: use the same camera, the same film, find your EI, develop the same every time, agitate the same. The shadow will fall into place for you.
No need to go into scanning, or wet printing at this time, but be consistent.
The old 'saw' of expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights should be, at least for me, expose for the shadows, develop for the midtones, and agitate for the highlights.
When I started my quest to achieve more shadow detail all I had was a Spotmatic with an onboard meter. So the old 'saw' of expose for the shadows and develop for highlights left me with only one option: change EI to increase shadow detail. Sounds easy but in Panama it was a little hard compared to even sunny California.
Now, I cut my EI to 1/2 the box speed, cut development by very little and agitate minimally. The minimal agitation holds down the blowouts of the highlights. Now a lot of people may not like this, but it works for my Pentax Spotmatic and many other metered cameras that I have.
In closing you have to find the box where everything works for you: use the same camera, the same film, find your EI, develop the same every time, agitate the same. The shadow will fall into place for you.
No need to go into scanning, or wet printing at this time, but be consistent.
The old 'saw' of expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights should be, at least for me, expose for the shadows, develop for the midtones, and agitate for the highlights.
thebelbo
Member
That's a good point and I also think about it given that there are a lot of factors at play. Reality is a lot of times when scanning or printing I come across blocked shadows and got tired of it. Generally my B&W negatives come out very contrasty with blocked shadows and highlights more often than I like - I really envy the very smooth tonal ranges I see on B&W images around here. I'm using 400 film (HP5 or Tri-X) and developing with Ilfosol 3. I have checked my meter and works fine and I'm pretty experienced in-terms of exposure so that can't be it. Reality is that I'm shooting a lot of times in high-contrast situations and that's where the problem starts. I'm now scanning without cutting anything from the histogram so ruling that out. Having done a fair amount of reading my thinking is that by giving an additional stop I will reduce shadows blocking and then via reducing development time I also reduce highlights blocking so it is kind of a sweet spot. I get it that that means less contrast but contrast has never been one of my problems.
thebelbo
Member
Thanks for sharing! Yea, I also have the sense that agitation plays a big role. As I wrote to the friend above I get blocked highlights as well and long development times and agitation could be behind it. I will try to follow what you're suggesting, sticking with just 1 camera, film, developer combination and just play around with different techniques until I land something that works for me.
Pete B
Well-known
It sounds to me that you're going through a stage that I went through. My problem was my scanning technique but I was convinced the problem was my exposure. I realised the problem was not exposure when I swapped to using T grain films (TMax and Delta). My scanner then stopped giving me blocked shadows. Do something for me. Buy a roll of Ilford Delta 400, shoot it at 250 exposing as you normally would. Then scan it and see what you think.
Two things. Sunny 16 suggests 1/250 @ f16 in bright sun, and 1/250 at f5.6 in cloudy conditions so compare the exposure you're about to use with that in mind. Ask yourself if your exposure sounds reasonable. (i.e if it's overcast and you're about to shoot 1/250 @ f11 it doesn't sound reasonable).
Secondly, Do you use vuescan? If you do, do you lock the exposure having prescanned a blank part of the film (some rebate). This tells your scanner what "Black" is so your scan isn't under exposed. Prescan blank film, click lock exposure, prescan the blank area again and click another box that appears (something about film base) and click lock film colour. Then you will have 6 cursors you can side about to get your output jpeg histogram unclipped. It's easier just to output a raw file though because it has everything in it from the get-go, and you bring that out using ColorPerfect.
Try a T grain film today.
Pete
thebelbo
Member
Indeed I have to say that T-grain films (TMax 400 specifically) actually scanned quite well probably better than conventional grain. I haven't used them for a while but it might be a good consideration to revisit. I've used Vuescan but currently using Silverfast. Thanks again!
charjohncarter
Veteran
thebelbo, this tutorial was written by one of our members. Although it is for color negative film, some of the principals do apply to B&W negative. Under the part about histogram adjustments he brings the white arrow and the black arrow tight to the edge of the histogram. When post processing B&W I actually add a little room at both ends and then correct that to my tastes in my editing program. I don't want some other program deciding where those arrows should be without my knowledge, so I do each negative by hand. Sometimes these programs clip information at both ends of the histogram. When the whites are clipped they may become blown out, if I want them blown I want to do it myself.
http://www.coltonallen.com/getting-the-most-from-color-negative-film-with-your-epson-flatbed/
http://www.coltonallen.com/getting-the-most-from-color-negative-film-with-your-epson-flatbed/
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
This is my approach also.
Consider "Stand-Development" where a "compensating" effect is exploited to lower contrast where aggitation is minimized as to not blow highlights.
Elsewhere I have posted about using Diafine to exploit its profound compensating effect. I overexpose for shadow detail, I develop for midrange, and I minimize aggitaion to maximize the compensating effect.
In effect I kinda get a bit of HDR but on film.
If I aggitate normally I kinda wash out the mids and get more contrast.
Diafine is an interesting developer. I call it my "slacker's brew" because it is Panthermic (just use any temperture above 20 degrees C), it gets reused without needing replenishment, and it has a long-long shelf life.
The two films it favors though are Tri-X and Acros. My hope is that Acros II responds the same way.
Also know that I print digitally with Piezography. I'm not kidding about getting a HDR like effect with film. All about controlling a process...
Cal
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Keep it simple. Because modern film is simply very good. All of those expose for this develop for what are old times talks.
Measure bright, medium and dark part of the frame.
Take exposure in the middle. Film is so good these days, it will have it all.
Expose at box speed and develop like it is recommended with well known developer.
Then, before scan, dr print look at the negative. You will see how it has all of the details.
Main problem is within scanning and dr printing. I have to tweak scan settings sometimes a lot or even switch to another program, scanner. And for DR split printing does the wonders.
Also, try to keep photography close to nature of light. You can't see bright sky and deep shadows at same time by your eyes. Having less details in the shadows is natural.
Measure bright, medium and dark part of the frame.
Take exposure in the middle. Film is so good these days, it will have it all.
Expose at box speed and develop like it is recommended with well known developer.
Then, before scan, dr print look at the negative. You will see how it has all of the details.
Main problem is within scanning and dr printing. I have to tweak scan settings sometimes a lot or even switch to another program, scanner. And for DR split printing does the wonders.
Also, try to keep photography close to nature of light. You can't see bright sky and deep shadows at same time by your eyes. Having less details in the shadows is natural.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
KenR
Well-known
Divided developer
Divided developer
I have been using divided D-23 for those situations that I feel are very contrasty - for example street photography where I am on the shady side of the street, but don’t want the sunny side background to blow out completely. Seems to work well, similar to stand, semi-stand and low agitation techniques that others have mentioned.
Divided developer
I have been using divided D-23 for those situations that I feel are very contrasty - for example street photography where I am on the shady side of the street, but don’t want the sunny side background to blow out completely. Seems to work well, similar to stand, semi-stand and low agitation techniques that others have mentioned.
Pete B
Well-known
With Silverfast, use the film profile that give you a good range of tones i.e. not necessarily the profile with the same name as your film.
Pete