under developed vs. under exposed

[Juan Valdenebro]

If I needed an important print on fiber paper for my family, I would scan, process carefully, make a good digital print with a little less contrast than required, and then I'd photograph the print with film...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[f/14]

Start by getting your exposure right and worry about development afterwards.
You need details in the shadows. This normally means exposing a stop or two more than what it says on the film box. Then reduce your development somewhat until you have the highlight density that you are able to print or scan easily.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlnt5yFArWo
He's got it right. Expose for the shadows and develop to control the highlights.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

f/1.4,

Great teacher! Thanks for the link... He's 100% right, and he's so very clear too!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Roger Hicks]

i just developed of photos i really like, however i underdeveloped the role, which resulted in negatives that lack in contrast.

what can i do about these photos if i would like to print these photos in the darkroom? would you guys suggest a longer printing time - shorter developing time (not sure if that would help) or possibly a red filter?

i don't have high contrast paper

ALWAYS develop prints to completion. Anything else is inviting muddy tonality. A red filter will simply stop the negs printing. I'd seriously suggest buying some high-contrast paper. What is your objecion to this? Availability? Cost? The fact that you don't need it very often? For the latter, grade 5 doesn't soon lose contrast with age: 5-10 years, or more, with well-stored paper, should be no problem.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Start by getting your exposure right and worry about development afterwards.
You need details in the shadows. This normally means exposing a stop or two more than what it says on the film box. Then reduce your development somewhat until you have the highlight density that you are able to print or scan easily.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlnt5yFArWo
He's got it right. Expose for the shadows and develop to control the highlights.

Yes, but exposing for the shadows means metering the shadows, not using broad-area metering (including TTL) and then lowering film speeds at random. Too much depends on brightness ranges to take the latter course. With spot metered shadows you can almost always use box speed or something very close to it. Anyone who is using one-quarter box speed is probably metering in rather a sloppy fashion or using a weird developer.

Likewise, 'reduce development time' is not necessarily the case. I find that for grade 2 I normally develop for slightly more than is often recomended by the manufacturers, and almost always more than is recommended by Zonie fundamentalists.

In fact, I'd suggest that a better approach is to start at box speed; adjust your development until you get good prints on grade 2 to 3; then, if need be, lower your film speed until you get the shadow detail you want. That way around, at least you won't start out with grossly overexposed negs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[screwglue]

i personally prefer to scan photos which i photograph, and the darkroom work i do at school as a class, sohigh contrast paper is not available. usually i do not make developing mistakes, however i made the prudent choice of mixing up an unfamiliar batch of liquid developer (due to time constraints at the time ). the label suggested a developing time of four minutes, and i possibly read the watch a minute off.

anyways, i'm positive this is a one time occasion, but i am desperately looking for a solution to these pictures just this one time. apart from higher contrast paper, is there anything else that could and can be done?

thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, there's intensification, but that's more hassle and more expense than contrasty paper. In my experience, thin, flat negs are often slightly easier to save via scanning than via wet printing on Grade 5.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

As we can't really check the negative, we can't be sure about how usable it is... But as Roger said, grade 5 paper could help you getting contrast and blacks... It's a very good and also cheap and fast solution, and high contrast paper can be used for other flat scenes for years...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[dfoo]

Or alternatively buy some variable contrast paper and a set of filters. Then you get all the grades (arguments about graded vs VC papers not with standing!)

 

[f/14]

Roger.
I agree about box speed as a staring point, but here is what happened when I did so.
Being an engineer at daytime I thought "Let's do this acurrately once an for all. If I am lucky this process would help building the instincts needed when you are out in the field doing street photography with little or no time for fine measurements." The outcome of the story below is that the quality and the evenness of my negatives has increased dramatically.
Btw, I am not a zone fundamentalist. Whatever gives insight is studied carefully but later applied liberally.
The rules are there to be broken once you know them good enough.
Like when you are out in the streets with a Bessa R and a Leica lens and things move fast and you have to use (more or less) average-based measurements.
I took my 4 (5) favourite films. Tri-X, (TMax100), HP4, HP5, TMax3200.
Took an R8 with accurate shutter and exposed a large white sheet in a closed room with fixed lightning. Started at box speed. Ran one frame for each zone centered around zone 5. Developed in XTOL to standard recommendations and measured the frames with desitometer to record the curve. Ended up exactly where Barbaum said I would (in the youtube video).
Tweaked the process (exposure and development) systematically until I got enough info in the shadows and an intensity curve towards the highlights that could be easily scanned. Ran the frames of the final films through the scanner(s) and adjusted scanning and printer profile until the print matched the film densities using reflectomter to check the (glossy) inkjet paper.
This cost me all nights for a week, quite an amount of film, and it set me back 250USD for a used Barbieri densitometer/reflectometer but it was well worth it. It's amazing what you can buy cheaply today as the large labs shut down.
Findings were:
Tri-X: 160 ISO (320 ISO not too bad depending on the subject.)
TMax100: 100 ISO
HP5: 160 (or 320 ISO as above)
TMax3200: 1000 ISO.
Had to take 10 to 20% off development time for different cases for the highlights to remain printable.
All data are of course personal in the sense that other people with different details in the development process may find different results.
This has all been done before and you can find the procedure it in textbooks. The point is to get to know your own processes. - And then go and have fun.

 

[dfoo]

Great post! I found for TMAX 400 that I do get printable, but faint, zone 3 shadow detail at ISO 400. I haven't tested TriX in the same way. I don't have a densiometer, although I'd like to get one 🙂