Happy accident with stand development

On the flickr group you asked why you got such a grey negative. I believe that it's underexposed.

In black and white photography, there is a saying: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.
 
I'm surmising that the quality of light at the time the reference photo was taken has more to do with it than the method of development. You might try working on emulating that single window illumination method.

Also, in a wet darkroom you can (somewhat) compensate for a flat (i.e. low contrast) negative by using a higher contrast grade paper and/or enlarger filter.

~Joe
 
What happened is you took a beautiful portrait of a beautiful woman. The light from the light source (a window i presume) looks defuse and very appealing. The shallow DOF works to enhance the mood. The print looks wonderful.
 
I don't know...
All of what you say makes sense.
But do you see how bright the eyeball is in the centre frame?
It makes think the developer was exhausted before it could finish the job.

 
film code and numbers look *ok* so would suggest underexposure. the bright spot in the eye could just mean very overexposed highlight as well since it's coming off the whites.
 
Ok, you're right.
I found another film that looks quite similar.
With this one I'm sure that it is underexposed. I forgot to compensate for the long bellow extension.

There's also a very short light falloff, short DOF, low key scene and... underexposure.

The negs are equally transparent with just some shades grey on them.
Not as complex as the other though. Was lab developed HP5.


 
Stand development is not for a low contrast scenes. The light through the window may have presented a high contrast scene but I doubt it. Also, HC-110h is a good developer in my opinion and the opinion of Ansel Adams for stand or semi-stand development. Not because of any great tonal rendering but because there must be something in it to NOT have streaking or uneven development.

I also concur that it is at least two stops under exposed.
 
andre mueller said:
Ok, you're right.
I found another film that looks quite similar.
With this one I'm sure that it is underexposed. I forgot to compensate for the long bellow extension.

There's also a very short light falloff, short DOF, low key scene and... underexposure.

The negs are equally transparent with just some shades grey on them.
Not as complex as the other though. Was lab developed HP5.


Click to expand...

Exposure is relative, if you meant to have detail in the hair with the shot of the girl then yes more exposure could have done it (but wouldn't be the best option).
With the shot of the man above what you have to ask is what benefit to the image would having more detail give? I think it looks just fine with the attention on the eyes.

That said a better option with the first image would have been to add a hair light, or place a reflector to pick out the hair so it won't appear so black.
When you try to assess the negative with the future in mind look at the point where you want the shadow to have detail, meter for that point then stop down two stops to place the emerging detail in the toe of the curve.

Your negative of the girl looks fine to me, sure it is low contrast but all the information is in the negative that you need to make a print is there. Giving the negative more contrast won't help the detail in the hair and will have a proportionately larger effect on the higher tones and ruin the low key mood making the background more obtrusive as the eye looks for the lighter part of the print.

In the case of the image of the girl I find the lighting balance visually pleasing, if the background was darker then hair light is the way to go especially if the background is dark as this.


Mel by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
HP5, Rodinal 1:50

My opinion is that rather than worry about development a combination of the correct lighting and good exposure will give you the results you need; just increasing exposure will destroy the mood; a slight modification of the lighting will help to give the results you imagined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom