Making good negatives and avoiding frustration

[John Bragg]

It is abundantly clear that printing and scanning can be hard enough without having to fight a bad negative. The modern fad for pushing film at all costs doesn't help matters
much and time and time again we see images with no shadow detail, dead looking mid tones and whited out highlights. Perhaps us old codgers brought up in a film only world should share our best practice and transferable skills that are all too relevant in a hybrid world. My 10c is :- Don't be affraid to deviate from the reccommendations made by film makers for time and temperature as your personal needs are likely different. Use the fastest lenses you have to avoid pushing (unless absolutely unavoidable) and learn to shoot low speeds. Expose generously as +1 stop is far easier to scan or print than -1 or more stops. Develop just enough and no more than you need for your system, be it scanning or wet printing and also factor your agitation regime into this. In essence you have about 125th of a second to capture all the information that is needed to build your final picture. Don't do anything physically or chemically to degrade that information once contained in the latent image and you will be rewarded with a negative that is a joy to scan or print. Contrast can always be adjusted later, but information lost through under exposure and bad development is gone forever. Anyone else have top tips for making the best possible negatives ? Lets help pass on our knowledge to those starting out at a very interesting time in film/hybrid photography.

 

[Prest_400]

Not an old codger but someone with just a year of darkroom experience. So far, I would say sticking with manufacturers' recommendations and a slight margin for exposure variations worked well.


HP5 in 120 is my staple, I should experiment a bit beyond as results are lower in contrast and with a long tone scale but again split printing and use of grade 5 can make some prints sing.
Infact I forget about pushing, only tried once during a foggy day and printed beautifully. I mostly do split grade printing, although for flat negatives most of the exposure is under grade #5.
Being a Medium format shooter, I only push when necessary, and actually forget about it. In halcyon days of Kodachrome, ISO 64 was it and imparted some good discipline...

Did have a mishap developing TMX100, flat gray negs that are hard to print and still don't have deep shadows on grade 5.

Color wise I once sat on a Fuji Frontier that a lab brought to a photo fair and my Portra 400 negs sang, but they were very properly exposed. Bear in mind a large majority of the new demographic send film to labs and get nice processed scans.
Some people do that push "just because", but the lab's interpretation does correct a lot of the issues, so the negative difficulties are externalised. This probably is correlated with the perception of slide film being difficult.


I took so long to go B&W because I waited until I could get darkroom access and do the whole process. IMO sending B&W to a lab for scans does no justice. Yesterday I did my first 100% fiber based printing session and it was a pleasure.

 

[icebear]

Learning about proper exposure in theory first and then by evaluating the negative and how they can be printed is a learning curve. People just have to make sure it's pointing constantly upwards. Unless you keep pushing it's only going down. And yeah in general with bw negative film, a "good helping" of light is better than severe underexposure. And I used TMX at 800 (push +1) only.

 

[John Bragg]

I took so long to go B&W because I waited until I could get darkroom access and do the whole process. IMO sending B&W to a lab for scans does no justice. Yesterday I did my first 100% fiber based printing session and it was a pleasure.

And that's where the control begins. You can now make your own decisions and enjoy every minute, even the inevitable mishaps are part of the learning curve.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I love pushing (when it works) but I mostly pull, and learning to print reminds you the hard way that exposure is critical as it's much more difficult to get right after the event compared to scanning.

As has been mentioned by Prest and certainly my experience speaking to a lot of younger film shooters, nearly all send off for processing and scanning. Some don't have the time to do more than that, and others are happy with the results they get back. My mentor, who offers darkroom courses to film shooters to learn the correct way gets close to zero interest for these (there may be other factors!).

 

[Prest_400]

As has been mentioned by Prest and is certainly my experience speaking to a lot of younger film shooters, nearly all send off for processing and scanning. Some don't have the time to do more than that, and others are happy with the results they get back. My mentor, who offers darkroom courses to film shooters to learn the correct way gets close to zero interest for these (there may be other factors!).

My current darkroom is a shared facility owned by a photography club of which I am a member. I might be one of the most committed "young" (25) members.
I perceive there is a barrier to begin the darkroom as there are other young ones who try, but don't really frequent it. When I began, I got a gentle nudge by experienced members to try printing.

That, and the fact that I waited about a decade to do the whole process made me so committed to it.

I shoot medium format and might do about 3-6h of darkroom during quieter months. During winter, and going through an after-Christmas film backlog, it might have been about 32h/month. It is sometime, but not really that much and it's actually quite nice in the darkroom when it's dark and cold outside.

There is the huge advantage of sitting on a stock of donated Ilford RC paper, for club members to print as much as anyone wants and can... I made a 2" high stack of 20x30cm prints in this first year and once spent 10h with another member in contact printing everything in our portfolio (that might be an extra 1" stack on my contact file).
As I'm a careful and selective shooter, I don't have big backlogs and do print a lot of my work.

And that's where the control begins. You can now make your own decisions and enjoy every minute, even the inevitable mishaps are part of the learning curve.

And a fully equipped darkroom provides so many ways to branch out. The club has tons of old paper that might be good for Lith, Alt processes, Larger formats, etc. I often feel there's a museum in there.
Sometimes there's another person that wants to do darkroom work and it's enjoyable. I learned a lot from more proficient members and deem to show new people the basics.

 

[goamules]

I've done B&W for two periods of my life. Once when in the Navy as ships intel photographer. Then a gap of about 25 years. Then more recently with 35mm and Large Format. I will say I like a dense negative. When I see a thin one drying I slap my forehead. Usually due to my carelessness in not giving it an extra stop. I do follow that technique: set my light meter half of what the film is rated for. It seems to work well with B&W that I use.

 

[css9450]

I will say I like a dense negative. When I see a thin one drying I slap my forehead.

I took photography in Jr. High School and the biggest hurtle there was keeping the water warm enough for the developer. If I remember right, we mixed the developer in hot water but then cooled it in the refrigerator, to be mixed to the right ratio the next day using water of the appropriate warmth to equal 68 degrees in the mixed solution. Sounds like a recipe for mistakes, eh? It was. Countless students struggled with cold solution, insufficient developing times and thin negatives. And they were impossible to get a good print from them!

The school yearbooks there were illustrated using a lot of pics from the photography class. Looking back, its easy to identify those at a glance. Muddy, flat, gray prints invariably came from our photography class and our cold developer!

 

[charjohncarter]

Did have a mishap developing TMX100, flat gray negs that are hard to print and still don't have deep shadows on grade 5.

Tmax 100 (and400) to me is/are fussy films and my experience with Deltas is the same. After a resounding success on my first roll it took me a long time to repeat; now I just cookbook my development process.

Strangely, my first roll 14 years ago it did stand development. Everybody here was doing it (RFF) so I gave it a try. Later I had so many problems I went cookbook.

Here is one from that first roll:

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

Now my development time is way longer than recommended, but I do very little agitation and I don't seem to have problems with blown out highlights. In other words expose for the shadows, develop for the mid-tones, and agitate for the highlights (DF Cardwell)

 

[Corran]

Perhaps us old codgers brought up in a film only world should share our best practice and transferable skills that are all too relevant in a hybrid world.

Uh, the best practices for shooting/scanning film in a hybrid workflow are actually not the same as for wet printing.

As has been mentioned by Prest and certainly my experience speaking to a lot of younger film shooters, nearly all send off for processing and scanning.

Anecdotal, but I know almost no one who sends off (b&w film) to be processed.

 

[css9450]

Anecdotal, but I know almost no one who sends off (b&w film) to be processed.

I see a lot of photographers on Youtube who shoot B&W and send it off for processing. Seems like the delay makes for a lot of extra work shooting and editing the rest of the video, or perhaps they live somewhere they can get quick turnaround on processing.

 

[John Bragg]

Uh, the best practices for shooting/scanning film in a hybrid workflow are actually not the same as for wet printing.

Anecdotal, but I know almost no one who sends off (b&w film) to be processed.

That is entirely a valid opinion, but I have found in practice for me, and my actual circumstances, a negative made as if for a condenser enlarger (like my Kaiser Multigrade) will scan easily. The skills I have learnt over 35 years of developing black and white for enlarging are eminently transferable when, as I have had to, applying that skill set to producing an optimal negative for scanning.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How about treating film as film, not digital? Need perfecto, use digital.
To me negative is good if image is visible. And it is good image, not boring ideal empty something.



HP5 @3200 in hcA. Negative is so dark, I could only scan it (it was actually dark).
Not ideal for perfectionists, but people who I care for like it.

BTW. Which film OP is talking about. ECN2, E-6, C-41 or BW? I did them all. LOL.

 

[Prest_400]

Tmax 100 (and400) to me is/are fussy films and my experience with Deltas is the same. After a resounding success on my first roll it took me a long time to repeat; now I just cookbook my development process.

Strangely, my first roll 14 years ago it did stand development. Everybody here was doing it (RFF) so I gave it a try. Later I had so many problems I went cookbook.

Here is one from that first roll:

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

Now my development time is way longer than recommended, but I do very little agitation and I don't seem to have problems with blown out highlights. In other words expose for the shadows, develop for the mid-tones, and agitate for the highlights (DF Cardwell)

I agree, went for Kodak's recommendation in HC110B of 6:30 with agitation every 5 seconds. Our faucet is a bit temperamental and sometimes temps can be off, it might have been, because it ended up with those thinner gray negs.

Your results are absolutely beautiful. TMX has a fantastic fine grain film that makes 35mm approach Medium format in some ways. In Europe Ilford is a good $2-3 cheaper than Kodak so they are my choice nowadays for B&W.
Delta 100 in HC110 comes out as a bit contrasty, but not extreme, and that might be as it needs a bit extra exposure. Processing myself I blatantly note differences in film characteristics that sending to labs would homogenize.


I'd say I'm "luckier" in 120. No matter what I do I've had good results. Delta 100, HP5 and Fomas so far.

Except for that one time I poured fixer first.

It's not the single time you've shared your DF Cardwell inspired routine, so I'll delve into it next batch.

Uh, the best practices for shooting/scanning film in a hybrid workflow are actually not the same as for wet printing.
Anecdotal, but I know almost no one who sends off (b&w film) to be processed.

Totally agree. Most of the new film scene hangs out around social media (Instagram) and in there many of them can be seen. Youtube has many channels that are popular. The mailorder labs share a fair bit of B&W and it's not only wedding photographers sending to labs.
A satirical note is that everyone there has Mamiya 7's and shoots airy Portra 400, or gas stations on Cinestill.

 

[John Bragg]

How about treating film as film, not digital? Need perfecto, use digital.
To me negative is good if image is visible. And it is good image, not boring ideal empty something.



HP5 @3200 in hcA. Negative is so dark, I could only scan it (it was actually dark).
Not ideal for perfectionists, but people who I care for like it.

BTW. Which film OP is talking about. ECN2, E-6, C-41 or BW? I did them all. LOL.

BW of course. I have tried the others and they don't rock my boat.

 

[Jake Mongey]

Some advice to my former self. You know that 50 year old can of fix you got given. Dont use it. dont use it for 2 full bulk rolls as well. Dont keep using it even after it takes 1n hour to fix.

You will not have negs for long.

 

[twvancamp]

I appreciate threads like this--lots of great wisdom. I often go through spells where I don't like my negatives, and it's typically when I am experimenting with different stocks, trying different recipes, or using untested camera bodies.

My advice to myself is to limit variables until I've got a workflow and results that I'm really happy with.

 

[Beemermark]

The modern fad for pushing film at all costs doesn't help matters

"pushing" film doesn't increase film speed, simply pushes the D-max curve. I never push film unless I absolutely have too. Proper exposure and consistent developing techniques.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

That is entirely a valid opinion, but I have found in practice for me, and my actual circumstances, a negative made as if for a condenser enlarger (like my Kaiser Multigrade) will scan easily. The skills I have learnt over 35 years of developing black and white for enlarging are eminently transferable when, as I have had to, applying that skill set to producing an optimal negative for scanning.

John,
A printable negative is easy to scan, true, but what I am guessing he might have been referencing is the fact that many negatives that are too dense to print well present no problems at all if scanning, depending on the scanner, the scanner software, and whether or not one is utilizing multi-exposure scan mode. In that case, a negative that is exposed/developed to being too dense to print might even be preferable, yielding superior end results, to one which is perfect for printing. It’s one of the advantages of a hybrid technique, exposing/developing for highlights and midtones, and using scanning software to pull out more details in the shadows, yielding increased tonal range in the final result. Cheating, perhaps, but effective.
Some do feel that the criteria for negatives created to be ideal for traditional printing might not be the same criteria which hold for those using some of the hybrid techniques.

 

[charjohncarter]

I appreciate threads like this--lots of great wisdom. I often go through spells where I don't like my negatives, and it's typically when I am experimenting with different stocks, trying different recipes, or using untested camera bodies.

My advice to myself is to limit variables until I've got a workflow and results that I'm really happy with.

I like them too. I wish we had more like this, but the number of people interested in this subject is not a lot.

Just like you imply, totally eliminate variables; repeat your post processing workflow to YOUR taste.

Even if you are/were Croesus you couldn't do better than to do it your way.