John Bragg
Well-known
Thankyou Larry for your in depth explanation. I still stand by my assertion that the same skills are important in developing a negative fit for purpose, whether that is for scanning or wet printing. I am not talking about making the best job of rescuing a less than optimal negative, but making the best possible negative that holds the most retrievable information. Regards, John.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
“I am not talking about making the best job of rescuing a less than optimal negative.”
Neither am I, not really, though considered another way, that’s exactly what I am talking about. And I am certainly not disputing the nature of the basic skill set involved in producing an optimal negative, and the universality of that.
A negative exposed and developed to contain all 10 Zones of density will print well with traditional darkroom printing, and it will indeed be optimal for scanning as well, and scanning most easily done.
There may be photographers who can go out with any film in any lighting conditions, day in and day out, whose every negative exhibits all 10 zones of density, but it’s more common that there are situations which arise for most photographers, much of the time, no matter how good they are at exposure or developing, that they have to make a choice between highlight detail or shadow detail.
With traditional printing, your best effort at a negative, in those situations, essentially dictates what you get in the print, localized dodging and burning aside. What you see in the negative, is what you get in the print.
Someone scanning negatives has certain options unavailable to someone going directly from film to darkroom printing, multi-exposure scanning being the most dramatic of these. Film which was exposed to capture highlight detail, in lighting situations where shadow detail was thereby rendered impossible to capture in a way that would be printable using traditional techniques...scans can be made of that frame which result in a digital file with both highlight detail and shadow detail.
In those happy negatives which contain all 10 density zones, due to fortunate lighting of the scene, as well as perfect exposure and matched development, it’s true that those negatives are ideal for both printing and scanning. In other real world situations where getting highlight detail means sacrificing shadow detail in the negative in spite of the world’s best development methods, then good scanning techniques can expand our possibilities. Information which was, in instances such as this, not retrievable using traditional darkroom printing techniques, becomes easily retrievable via scanning and printing. It’s one reason digital negatives have become popular even with photographers, good ones, who shoot film and wet print. They do not tend to think that they are “rescuing” bad negatives, as much as improving the best negatives that they could otherwise get, though I guess that’s a matter of semantics.
Not saying that hybrid techniques are better than traditional ones, all things considered, only that people habituated to one technique tend to look at, and use, negatives differently, with somewhat different requirements, than those habituated to the other technique.
Corran
Well-known
The best CI or contrast index for condenser and diffusion enlarger printing is different. It says so right in the instructions for developing, instructing those using diffusion heads to develop longer (increase contrast).
So too does scanning have an optimal CI, which is what I was getting at. And yes, as mentioned it is easy to retain detail when working in a hybrid process in some conditions (namely, a lower CI...).
What I got from the OP was that generally one should expose/develop as if shooting for wet printing, which is what I was somewhat disagreeing with, because depending on what "wet printing" negatives you tended to make, that could be a bad choice. It seems that the intention was to say one should expose and develop negatives that is "best fit" for purpose. Which I think everyone would agree is rather obvious - though it does get tough sometimes for someone like me who both scans and wet prints. I find that "bullet-proof" negatives scan poorly, or at the very least are especially grainy / lower resolution.
Regardless, we make certain choices (pulling/pushing), not to mention mistakes, and sometimes the light isn't perfect, so we have to make do.
Personally, I think 99% of the problem is not the negative but in the scanning process. I always have to facepalm when someone posts "unedited" scans of their film, which is usually bland and muddy. I guess they haven't figured out that darkroom paper has a significant S-curve.
So too does scanning have an optimal CI, which is what I was getting at. And yes, as mentioned it is easy to retain detail when working in a hybrid process in some conditions (namely, a lower CI...).
What I got from the OP was that generally one should expose/develop as if shooting for wet printing, which is what I was somewhat disagreeing with, because depending on what "wet printing" negatives you tended to make, that could be a bad choice. It seems that the intention was to say one should expose and develop negatives that is "best fit" for purpose. Which I think everyone would agree is rather obvious - though it does get tough sometimes for someone like me who both scans and wet prints. I find that "bullet-proof" negatives scan poorly, or at the very least are especially grainy / lower resolution.
Regardless, we make certain choices (pulling/pushing), not to mention mistakes, and sometimes the light isn't perfect, so we have to make do.
Personally, I think 99% of the problem is not the negative but in the scanning process. I always have to facepalm when someone posts "unedited" scans of their film, which is usually bland and muddy. I guess they haven't figured out that darkroom paper has a significant S-curve.
john_s
Well-known
Eliminating variables is the way to go, but can be tricky. I was having all sorts of problems when I returned to darkroom work with an early Zone VI 2-tube variable contrast light head that had something wrong with it. The way I eliminated that variable was to go back to graded paper for a while, then split printing with the Zone VI, then (the epitome) I got an Aristo VCL4500 2-tube head that works a treat.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
LCSmith
Well-known
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.
Really strong Photograph, K., even if saved by the scanner. I am formally trained in DR printing (but mostly 4x5, not so much 35mm). Some of my favorite images I have made on 35mm are too dark to print from the negative.
To the point, do not let anyone tell you that good modern lenses are a waste on bw films. Not true. If you know what you are doing with exposure and development, remarkable clarity and resolution can be achieved in 35mm with a modern lens (if that is what you are going for). I did an architectural series with the 21/3.4 Super-Elmar ASPH and TMAX. The resolution is just outstanding.
Consistency is the key. Make it a science.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Just shoot TMY at box speed with correct exposure (meaning your meter and camera are doing what they say they are doing). 7 minutes at 20 C in HC-110B. Done. It's a linear film.
I just scanned 34 rolls of 120, only rarely having actually used an exposure meter for 6x9 and 6x12, all the negatives were fine for scanning or projection, and the only unusable shots I got were the results of double-exposures or knocking the aperture lever on a Copal 0 to 4.5 from 16. For any daylight shooting, you can guess TMY to within a stop (or a half) of correct exposure.
With old CdS-cell cameras, I suspect that people see thin negs and think you need to push to compensate. That's totally wrong. Your photocell is breaking down, it's losing its resistance, and it's causing underexposure. The solution is to increase exposure on the camera (whether by EV compensation or dialing down the ASA/ISO). Likewise, if you use a modern exposure meter like a Sekonic L-358, you'll find that it is set up for transparencies and will tend to underexpose. You can set a base compensation or do what I did, which is get frustrated and just leave the meter at home.
"Pushing" an underexposed negative, if done as a matter of course, often leaves the blacks in the toe and can make the highlights too dense to print.
Dante
I just scanned 34 rolls of 120, only rarely having actually used an exposure meter for 6x9 and 6x12, all the negatives were fine for scanning or projection, and the only unusable shots I got were the results of double-exposures or knocking the aperture lever on a Copal 0 to 4.5 from 16. For any daylight shooting, you can guess TMY to within a stop (or a half) of correct exposure.
With old CdS-cell cameras, I suspect that people see thin negs and think you need to push to compensate. That's totally wrong. Your photocell is breaking down, it's losing its resistance, and it's causing underexposure. The solution is to increase exposure on the camera (whether by EV compensation or dialing down the ASA/ISO). Likewise, if you use a modern exposure meter like a Sekonic L-358, you'll find that it is set up for transparencies and will tend to underexpose. You can set a base compensation or do what I did, which is get frustrated and just leave the meter at home.
"Pushing" an underexposed negative, if done as a matter of course, often leaves the blacks in the toe and can make the highlights too dense to print.
Dante
LCSmith
Well-known
This is a problem which has never occurred to me because I have never used in camera meters on film cameras, but your solution is absolutely correct.
Orthogonal
Established
If someone wants pronounced grain and high contrast negatives, then power to them - pushed negs don't look like standard ones that have their contrast boosted in post. You can make a case that pushed negs look bad, but that's a creative argument not a technical one.
John Bragg
Well-known
Agreed. We each have our vision, and happiness is in achieving that reliably and repeatably.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I would rather deal with slightly overdeveloped/exposed negatives than under as I can adjust the enlarger.
Under developed/exposed I hate. After fixer, you can’t bring back once it’s gone.
This is with negative film.
With transparency film/digital, it’s just the opposite.
Under developed/exposed I hate. After fixer, you can’t bring back once it’s gone.
This is with negative film.
With transparency film/digital, it’s just the opposite.
oldwino
Well-known
"Need Perfecto, Use Digital" should be on a T-shirt.
Corran
Well-known
This is such a dumb statement. Just because one uses film doesn't mean they shouldn't have a basic level of craftsmanship, enough to realize their image through the rest of the process.
The art isn't in the quality of the negative or the perfection of the tool/process. It goes beyond that. And of course it's subjective. I think the image presented above is pretty poor in all aspects, both technical and artistic. Just my opinion, and neither a better negative or different tool would change that.
If anyone believes the above, they best not use any camera with adjustable aperture/shutter, meter, or heck even a lens. Anything more than a box with a pinhole and a piece of light-sensitive material behind it is simply striving towards "perfection," no?
oldwino
Well-known
Jesus. Lighten up.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Wow. At least you didn’t bring Hitler into it, that’s one good thing.
Having thought about it for a few minutes, cannot recall, even when a thread takes a bad turn, another time that a single post managed to insult two different members for two completely separate reasons, neither of which was obviously related to the thread title. One member excoriated for dumb remarks, for a remark that wasn't all that dumb, and another of being so lacking in judgment that he had the nerve to post a “poor” photograph, which is technically poor, but that was the entire point of posting it.
Virus thing getting to people, apparently.
Corran
Well-known
I can't imagine how one considers some discussion points and one light usage of the word dumb about a silly statement to be "excoriating" someone, but whatever. I merely take issue with the oft-repeated statement about digital being "perfect" and film being, supposedly, only useful for weird effects often through poor craftsmanship. That's fine, I'm out, have at it. Needn't have bothered.