How to get the rich blacks and good contrast

[Vince Lupo]

All depends on what you want to achieve -- exposing at 800 instead of 1600 will give you one more stop of shadow detail, and if labs processes accordingly then there is a possibility of more highlights. But as others have suggested, you could achieve more or less the same look with any number of software programs such as Silver Efex Pro, or by playing with the curves in PhotoShop.

 

[jtm6]

I also agree that going the Lab route isn't as desirable as being in total control. I've started tinkering with home development and hope to do more and more of it in the future. If only I had a suitable darkroom... converting a bathroom into a temporary darkroom is a lot of work for a roll or two.

You don't need a traditional darkroom to develop film. The film only needs to be in the dark when you remove it from the canister, put it on a spool, and put the spool in a small (0.5 liter) developing tank. This can be done in a dark closet, bathroom, etc. or you can get a light-tight bag and do it at your desk. After you load the film into the light-tight tank, you can do all the processing in the light.

By the way, I'm hooked! It cut my expenses down by more than half, and saves me a lot of time because I don't have to drive past a million people twice in each direction while waiting for a few days in between. It is also a lot of fun.

 

[V-12]

I don't want every image I shoot to be this way, but it is helpful to understand how to achieve this look when I want it.

I think you are onto something, it is good to see somebody having an image in their minds eye and going for it, if only more people did their own thing. It's just the path to get there that could be refined. And the idea from the poster above of processing your own film is both easy to achieve without a darkroom and gives you the type of control you can play with even further.

 

[waynec]

Contrast in developing is a result of developing time. You really need to get the process down in some testing to get the film/developer/time combination you like. But since everyone is scanning now days, the preferred procedure is really a slightly thin neg. In fact even in wet processing a thin neg can be preferable.

The only thing I see personally about the original picture is that the lens just isn't that sharp at that aperture. Outside that I'm ok with the contrast. And contrast really is a personal preference.

Now the expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights is a cut film procedure. You'll not generally have all the same exposures on rollfilm. On roll film I expose for the light and let the shadows fall where they may since the light and medium tones are more important; That where the eye goes. Of course shooting an entire roll in the woods would be a different story.

 

[benji77]

There are a number of nice photos in this thread regardless of the techniques 🙂

When I first started out in film, I aimed for the high contrast look. Only to refine myself along the way after noting that in the shadows, lie wonderful tones. Like what another member said, you cant add what is not there. Retaining these shadows means you would have to shoot closer to box speed, rather than pushing.

The alternative is to meter a 400 film at (lets say) 1600. Develop at about 1250. You can do this for other ratings too.

The longer you develop a film, the higher the contrast.
The stronger your developer ratio, the faster your film 'reacts' and becomes dark.

Having said that, your exposure in the very beginning plays an important roll. The lighting available in the shot would play an important consideration if it turns out to be a high/low contrast scene too.

This is a great thread to recount the basics 🙂