Highlight/shadow exposure and negative density

[Lauffray]

Sorry for the deluge of (stupid ?) questions, I thought it'd be best to ask them separately.

While printing yesterday, I noticed I need to expose my highlights longer before I get any details in them than the shadow areas which seemed to comparatively darken much faster.

Is the exposure only dependant on negative density or do shadows really burn faster than highlights ? Can someone confirm/refute this ?

 

[Charlie Lemay]

The exposure determines the shadow detail and the development determines the highhlight density. There is a ZoneSimple section on my website that provides an easy way to get full scale negatives. www.charlielemay.net

 

[Lauffray]

Thanks, but this is about the print not the negative

 

[Corran]

Do selective burning/dodging, change your filter, or work on split-filter printing. It sounds like your negative or simply the scene you shot has too much contrast. Your negative might've needed a bit more exposure and a bit less development in that shot.

 

[Dwig]

Thanks, but this is about the print not the negative

The same basic rule applies, but development has little practical impact on paper. When printing you have the follow controls:

1. Expose for the shadows and either dodge or burn the highlights as necessary.
2. Use a different contrast paper, lower in the case the OP describes, so that the negative's density range better fits the paper.
3. Destroy the negative, reshoot, and reprocess the film altering the time/temp and agitation to change the density range on the neg so that it fits the paper.

Generally, good photographers use #1 and/or #2 for the time being, but work toward the adjustments in #3 with future images to get negatives that print well on their normal paper, with some consideration of changing their normal paper to one that is better for their style of image.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

If youcan make a negative that puts more tones in the printable range of the paper, you will have an easier time printing. My ZoneSimple technique helps you make a more suitable negative for printing and is FREE, with FREE downloads. Try it and you'll see the difference.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry for the deluge of (stupid ?) questions, I thought it'd be best to ask them separately.

While printing yesterday, I noticed I need to expose my highlights longer before I get any details in them than the shadow areas which seemed to comparatively darken much faster.

Is the exposure only dependant on negative density or do shadows really burn faster than highlights ? Can someone confirm/refute this ?

At the most basic, your negatives are too contrasty, or you are printing on paper that is too contrasty, or both. What contrast grade paper are you using? What happens if you print on grade 0 or 00?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pherdinand]

is the exposure linear? I expect it is not, in the lower side you probably have some sort of reciprocity-failure issue 🙂
meaning, a 10x more dense part of the neg will need not 10x more light but possibly 20x to get to the same exposure on the paper. Meaning, to keep the same contrast between dark and bright parts on paper as it was on the negative, the highlights will need 2x longer exposure than the shadows.
Or 3x, or 10x, or 2.71x, whatever.

Sorry i have next to zero experience in printing but i know physics/optics and some mumbo jumbo behind printing/exposing

 

[Lauffray]

Thanks guys. The negative isn't very contrasty, it's better developed than my older ones (if I may say so myself, not brilliant but good). All printing done on Multigrade paper.

I made a test print with no filter and it was pretty evenly grey.
Then I did another test with a grade 4 filter