"Reading" print/negative exposure

[botty]

I am quite new to film developing and printing and am struggling with what constitutes 'correct' exposure.

By that I mean I am bracketing most shots in an attempt to practice but then find it difficult to decide which it properly exposed. I am using Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ which I guess have good latitude which complicates matters.

So, what should I be looking for on a negative/contact print?

 

[sepiareverb]

Make a 'proper' proof- by exposing long enough at grade 2 so that the sprocket holes are barely visible. Idea is to make the film base invisible so you're looking only at the developed silver. If the images look close for brightness and contrast you're right in the ballpark. If they're dark you need more exposure and/or development. If the images are too light you need less.

I should say the above applies to darkroom printing- from what I've seen of negatives for a scan workflow a proper proof will make everything look too dark. I don't scan film, so hopefully someone who does will chime in there.

 

[zauhar]

Make a 'proper' proof- by exposing long enough at grade 2 so that the sprocket holes are barely visible. Idea is to make the film base invisible so you're looking only at the developed silver. If the images look close for brightness and contrast you're right in the ballpark. If they're dark you need more exposure and/or development. If the images are too light you need less.

Well said (not that I am the world expert). I think 'barely visible' is better than the standard advice of completely black, which I feel leads to overexposure.

I would add that once you have the enlarger elevation and exposure interval figured out to achieve this, making the contact sheets is fast and easy. I recently discovered the Printfile archive sheets which let you make a 36-exposure contact sheet, and store the negatives and proof sheet together.

Randy

 

[clayne]

Negatives: Shadows should not be excessively clear nor highlights massive blocks of black. There should be somewhat of a middle ground balance, with the subject/scenes taken into account. It's really scene dependent, but a particular roll should be somewhere in the middle-ground without all frames looking dark/over/exposed, or high amounts of clear areas which is underexposure.

Contacts: Some people will tell you to always print at a certain grade and never change either the grade or the time. I say do *not* follow that advice. You want your contacts to serve a purpose other than being an exposure guide for the final print. Contacts are useful for both a rough idea of exposure, but more importantly (way more importantly), frame selection, and overall context of the roll. Adjust exposure/grade to show the most detail in the contact sheets. Then, *if you care* note on the contact what you had to do if it was outside the norm.

Contact prints as an exposure reference doesn't really mean squat as each paper type has different exposure times, responds differently, etc. and looking at your negatives (when placed into the enlarger), combined with experience with a certain paper, is a better method. You want your contacts to be a guide to what you've actually shot and not a relegated to a negative exposure indexing tool. No one makes a final print without a test print (or 10) anyway.

 

[ChrisN]

Make a 'proper' proof- by exposing long enough at grade 2 so that the sprocket holes are barely visible. Idea is to make the film base invisible so you're looking only at the developed silver. If the images look close for brightness and contrast you're right in the ballpark. If they're dark you need more exposure and/or development. If the images are too light you need less.

I should say the above applies to darkroom printing- from what I've seen of negatives for a scan workflow a proper proof will make everything look too dark. I don't scan film, so hopefully someone who does will chime in there.

Here is an excellent article on the subject by Barry Thornton: http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barrythornton/unzone.htm

WRT scanning: I find that negs exposed and developed properly for darkroom printing also scan very well.

 

[sepiareverb]

That is a great article Chris. I'm going to print that out for my students.

Contact prints as an exposure reference doesn't really mean squat as each paper type has different exposure times, responds differently, etc. and looking at your negatives (when placed into the enlarger), combined with experience with a certain paper, is a better method. You want your contacts to be a guide to what you've actually shot and not a relegated to a negative exposure indexing tool. No one makes a final print without a test print (or 10) anyway.

The OP asked how to determine if his film was being well exposed and developed. The proper proof is the simplest way to do this if one doesn't have a densitometer. There is no standard time for the proper proof- one runs a test strip to determine what time will get the film base invisible. No matter how careful one is that kind of consistency is impossible in the wet darkroom. One can determine the time for rolls of the same film with a test strip as long as one makes proof sheets with the same tray of developer. I save up films and run a bunch of proofsheets all at once. I'll stack up all the HP5, all the Ortho25, etc. and do a test strip for one type of film (say HP5), then run all the HP5 rolls. Then the same for the PanF, etc. etc. If I come back the next day or even try and proof a roll of the same film at the end of the day I do a new test strip.

Once we get our feet wet, and have some prints (or scans) under our belts we can deviate from "proper" as we see fit. A proofsheet is certainly more useful if one has some standard approach rather than just making it look OK. Ignoring a standard contrast grade for proof sheets and just making them look good is a recipe for sloppy camera work. Understanding what makes for a good negative means having good information, not covering up mistakes and making do. Granted, a proof sheet does have several uses, and making proper proofs is but one use, yet it is the only one which will allow the OP to get the answer he is after. I could make many rolls of film look OK on a contact sheet. Do I really want to have to print all the time from films that need to be proofed at grade 5 or at grade 1 to look good? No. I'd rather print from negatives that proof at grade 2 or 2.5 and making proof sheets in a consistent manner when one is learning exposure and development is the simplest way to learn exactly how changes to exposure and development effect the negative.

The contact sheet has nothing to do with determining exposure for making that first print from a roll. Every semester I have many students think that the contact sheet determines exposure for the prints on that roll. It doesn't. It can, however, be used to save time in the darkroom. I use contact sheets to get a look at my images as well as a guide for printing. I'll make a test strip from one image on the roll and can then judge any deviations needed for a decent rough print for subsequent frames from the roll most of the time using the proofsheet. It takes practice, but it is also helped along by consistency in process.

 

[clayne]

Ignoring a standard contrast grade for proof sheets and just making them look good is a recipe for sloppy camera work.

Different films.
Different developers.
Different papers.
Different paper developers.
Different lenses.
Selenium or not.
etc.

I'm not saying to ignore how it looks on a contact sheet or not take note of the fact that #4 was needed just to make it look sane - I'm simply saying that it's at best just a very rough indicator of any potential changes needed in process for *that* roll.

You know this, people religiously beat the horse that contact sheets should be #2, same time, same everything, every roll - and if they look bad, there's a problem with the original shooting or film process. Only holds water if one uses the same camera and film 100% of the time.

What I'm arguing is that having the most detail in a proof sheet ultimately saves more time in the darkroom by providing a good overall survey of what's on the roll and *what's worth printing because of substance* and not due to any printing guide it might impart. Substance of frame is worth more than proper exposure/contrast - although it sure as heck helps when all are good and not one or the other are way out of whack.

I don't even use the same paper for contact sheets anyway - so at best it's a very rough guide of how easy or hard a given set of negatives are going to print, if I want to print them. But I'm definitely not going to make a religious G2 contact sheet and then make another one once I realize they're all mud. I'm going to test a single negative on my contact paper, and print the rest around what is the best overall compromise for the entire roll.

What I'm arguing is that a proofsheet is not certainly more useful due to a standard approach used in making one - because a proofsheet should be used for selection based on substance/context/direction and nothing to do with technicalities (within reason, obviously).

 

[ChrisN]

I think it is reasonable to suggest that there may be a need for two different types of contact sheet, for two different purposes.

The "proper proof contact sheet" described by Barry Thornton, and above by Sepiareverb, is a tool for determining correct exposure and film development. As Roger H once stated here, it may not be necessary for every roll once you have your exposure (film exposure index) and development dialed in and consistent. But it is an essential tool for achieving that. (And it is all the more useful if you shoot with several different cameras and films.)

A different type of contact sheet may be needed if the contact sheet is to be used for selecting which negatives to print. Personally I prefer to decide that from scans, which I might post-process digitally to develop my visualisation before returning to the darkroom to wet-print. This approach has saved me a lot of paper!

 

[sepiareverb]

What I'm arguing is that a proofsheet is not certainly more useful due to a standard approach used in making one - because a proofsheet should be used for selection based on substance/context/direction and nothing to do with technicalities (within reason, obviously).

Well, a proofsheet is used for selection yes, and a proper proofsheet is the traditional tool for determining how exposure & development are going. It does have a technical purpose and value. And nothing prevents one from making a second proofsheet at grade 4 or whatever to get a better look at the images.

I see little value in ignoring the process, especially as one is learning, and just accepting that this roll needs to be proofed at G1 and this roll on G5 because, well, it just came out that way. Seeing what changes in exposure and development do over the course of a few or a dozen rolls via a consistent proofing technique allows one to learn exposure and development much more easily. Any change that is made and ignored when one has a simple, time-tested means of comparison is a waste of time. There is an answer to the question the OP posed, and it sure isn't "just do whatever and make the proofsheet look good- that's all it's for after all."

I still make proper proofs when learning a new emulsion- just went through it with SIlvermax. Looking at four rolls of film which each got different exposure & development via consistent proofing allows comparison between the four. Just making the best looking contact prints of each roll would only serve to hide the changes. Why make adjustments if you're not going to see what they do?

I think it is reasonable to suggest that there may be a need for two different types of contact sheet, for two different purposes.

The "proper proof contact sheet" described by Barry Thornton, and above by Sepiareverb, is a tool for determining correct exposure and film development. As Roger H once stated here, it may not be necessary for every roll once you have your exposure (film exposure index) and development dialed in and consistent. But it is an essential tool for achieving that. (And it is all the more useful if you shoot with several different cameras and films.)

Precisely Chris- and very well said.

A proper proof is not the ONLY way to gauge exposure and development across several rolls of film. Absent a community of folks one can sit down with to compare negatives and prints it is a quick, simple and useful place to start figuring out if what you're doing is "right".

 

[Photo_Smith]

Normally I expose (meter for emerging detail the stop down 2 stops) so that darkest detail is just visible in the negative.

When I was taught back in the 1970's we were told to lay the negative on the printed pages of a book, if you can't read the text through the darkest part of the negative it's over exposed.

 

[sepiareverb]

Different films.
Different developers.
Different papers.
Different paper developers.
Different lenses.
Selenium or not.
etc.

I'm not saying to ignore how it looks on a contact sheet or not take note of the fact that #4 was needed just to make it look sane - I'm simply saying that it's at best just a very rough indicator of any potential changes needed in process for *that* roll.

I think I see the miscommunication here- I'm talking about using the proofsheet in learning to expose and develop your FILM properly, not as a guide for making prints from a particular roll of film. The proper proof really has nothing to do with making subsequent prints from that roll any more than a 'perfect' proofsheet at grade 4 or 1 where every frame is beautiful does. Film type, paper type, developer doesn't really matter in making a proper proof. It is on a 'normal' grade paper with an exposure time that compensates for the density of the film base- so only developed silver is being evaluated. This allows one to see if 'enough' silver is on the negative or if there is too much.

 

[Jerevan]

I am with the Thornton school of thought, as is described by sepiareverb and ChrisN. I do standardised proofs (grade 2,5 in my particular case) to get an idea "what's on the roll", to judge exposures and to be able to see what could be printed without any esoteric shenanigans. I tried the "perfect" proofsheet idea when I started out fifteen years ago - it just got me nowhere and in hindsight I wish I'd known about the un-zone idea (as Barry called in his article, a rather wordy piece, see here: http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barrythornton/unzone.htm). With the standarised proofs, it was (and is) easy for me to see if something is off. Later on, I do test/work prints but that is something else.

 

[botty]

I probably need to clarify.

I am taking test films at the moment to try to improve my exposure knowledge. Most shots are taken as metered, -1 and +1 stop so I end up with 3 very similar side by side shots on the contact print. I am having difficulty in seeing which is the 'best' exposure. What should I be looking for?

I am using a patteson contact printer which does a good job of covering the sprocket holes.

 

[Jerevan]

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682 is a good guide, I think.

 

[sepiareverb]

I probably need to clarify.

I am taking test films at the moment to try to improve my exposure knowledge. Most shots are taken as metered, -1 and +1 stop so I end up with 3 very similar side by side shots on the contact print. I am having difficulty in seeing which is the 'best' exposure. What should I be looking for?

I am using a patteson contact printer which does a good job of covering the sprocket holes.

At grade 2 or 2.5, an image of a "standard" scene, say a landscape or a portrait that looks close to what you think the print should look like. So contrast decent, highlights bright and shadows dark. With the Paterson proofer, you might load a short piece of blank film or a full strip with a blank frame at the end, so you can see the edge of the film. Print darker until that blank film is barely visible against the background at grade 2 or 2.5. Then evaluate density and contrast of the images. If images look good with a full range of tones you're doing well. Bracketing can absolutely help hone in on correct film speed, development is usually what I have to figure out over a few rolls. Tweak time and agitation as you think the images need either more contrast or less.

I like grade 2.5 for roll film and grade 2 for sheet film. Not sure why the smaller negs seem easier to print with a little less contrast built in, but they do.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682 is a good guide, I think.

The problem with so many of these internet and even printed page guides is that one can't be sure what they're looking at. Brightness, film base plus fog, even changes in film type can skew what you;re looking at. The above link is a good start for sure, but making a proper proof of each film you make changes in your process for is a great start.

Later on, I do test/work prints but that is something else.

Exactly. A proofsheet should be used to a) judge exposure and development and b) get an idea of what images are on the roll - in equal measure.

A great picture ain't often great if you can't get a decent print of it, and getting a good enough contact is a whole different story than getting a good 11x14 print. Heck, a good 2x3" print is MUCH easier than a good 11x14.

Consistency in proofing is the best way to evaluate changes to exposure and development if one doesn't own a densitometer. And, having used a densitometer, I can say seeing the results as images was much easier for me than looking at densitometer readings.

 

[clayne]

The "grade 2-3 or die" proof-sheet school of thought may work just great if all of your subject matter is rigidly exposed landscapes and studio portraits. Otherwise, if you have things all over the place for whatever reason (this doesn't necessarily mean a weakness or inability to photograph) that doesn't fit into the rigid box of grade 2 proof-sheets you're probably ignoring quite a few things that are still printable.

Why make paper that can go below grade 2 or above grade 3 if anything outside of that range is "not worth printing?"

In general I make contact sheets from 2-3 and sometimes higher if necessary. However, I don't let this control what I'm going to print and would rather have a decent idea of what an image looks like if it's still printable without resorting to massive heroics.

I do agree that a #2 proof-sheet is a decent measurement of "am I in the ballpark?" But I see all often rigid adherence to it. Do you think someone like Ralph Gibson does all his proofs at #2? He may, and if he does, I guarantee you he's still mentally viewing the potential prints differently.

 

[sepiareverb]

I do agree that a #2 proof-sheet is a decent measurement of "am I in the ballpark?"

:bang: :bang: :bang:

Hooray!! Yes this is what the OP is asking. A means to check and dial in his exposure & development.

 

[botty]

Plenty for me to work with there. Thanks.

 

[Brando]

I probably need to clarify.

I am taking test films at the moment to try to improve my exposure knowledge. Most shots are taken as metered, -1 and +1 stop so I end up with 3 very similar side by side shots on the contact print. I am having difficulty in seeing which is the 'best' exposure. What should I be looking for?

I am using a patteson contact printer which does a good job of covering the sprocket holes.

Look for the one that looks the best to you. Personally, I aim for good detail in the shadows (or texture in Zone II), but it's all balancing act.