Can one take "expose for lows, develop for highs" too far?

[Don'tknowmuch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is about Tri-X/HC-110.

All this talk of exposing and developing film properly (Annibale’s thread) has been going on at the same time as I’ve been wondering if I’m doing the right thing with my Tri-X processing.

I need to explain that, to my shame really, I currently scan and print. I would like to say that I was a master printer using an enlarger, but I wasn’t when I was doing it, and certainly am not now. I can’t imagine how I could ever, using an enlarger, approach what I manage in Photoshop. Sorry, it grieves me too, but there it is.

I would welcome opinions/advice about how I’m tending towards greater exposure in order to get the shadow details, and then finding that, in order to keep the highs, I'm quite seriously under-developing the film. This, obviously, leads to rather pale and, frankly, poor-looking negs, but, after scanning and a bit of levels work in Photoshop, I find I get what I want better than if I had denser negatives. In addition to keeping the range inside the latitude of the film, I find grain is often reduced in skies. (Currently rating Tri-X@ about 125asa and then developing for 5m30s in Dil H HC-110).

This is, of course, perfectly legitimate if I get the results I want, but I am concerned that I might be going to end up with boxes full of negs that work for my current scanner but which may not scan well in other scanners and even may not conventionally print at all.

I’ve been through lots of examples this morning, re-scanning and analysing what worries me, and I think the above says what I want. However, I almost feel I don’t know what it is that is bothering me, but that something is.

The obvious response (if anyone even feels like responding to this vague post) is to say that if I get what I want, then go with it; but I feel I may be doing something wrong – possibly something fundamental – and am then doing something else wrong, or, at best, unnecessary, in order to overcome it.

Thanks for your time (if you’ve got this far!)

Jim.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Hi, I'm not quite sure that I understand completely your aim. But to consider different strategies about a good combination of film and developer, please look at the homepage of our member @telewatt, one of Germanys best jazzphotographer.

 

Musiker

 

He is heavily using Fuji Neopans developed in the two bath dev."Emofin", a product of Tetenal. This combination he utilizes in low light atmospheres as clubs, studios etc. His scanner is an Imacon but wet printing he is doing as well I've been told.

Analize his pics if there is a question I'm sure he will help!

 

Bet regards

Bernd

[dave_d]

Jim, To answer your question in the title of this post, yes. You want proper exposure and proper developement. Doing so will give you the most information to work with wether your are scanning or printing. You say your negatives are pale. Does this mean thin with very little density? Your film scanner was designed to handle properly exposed and processed film. If your current photographic method is done to obtain decent scans, I would evaluate your scanning and digital process to see where the problem lies. I have never used HC-110 but a film speed of 125 iso for Tri-x seems like too much exposure to me. If you over expose too much your highlights will fall onto the shoulder of the curve where they are compressed and you will lose seperation in your highlight detail that under developement won't bring back. But then again if your current methods work for you keep doing what works.

[Dan States]

Without knowing what scanner you are using it's hard to be precise but in general a film scanner can handlr a suprisingly dense negative. Problems come from too much contrast. If you feel the negs are thin I would increase dev time by 15% and see how it looks. Given the proper dev time you can use Tri x at 100 if that is what you need, but 200 will typically give you great shadows when processed short (say 20%).

 

There is no one answer of course because there are so many factors involved including lens contrast, motif and most important your personal vision of the final print.

 

You should not be ashamed of a hybrid work flow!

 

Best wishes

Dan

[dfbldwn]

I would welcome opinions/advice about how I’m tending towards greater exposure in order to get the shadow details' date=' and then finding that, in order to keep the highs, I'm quite seriously under-developing the film. This, obviously, leads to rather pale and, frankly, poor-looking negs, but, after scanning and a bit of levels work in Photoshop, I find I get what I want better than if I had denser negatives. In addition to keeping the range inside the latitude of the film, I find grain is often reduced in skies. (Currently rating Tri-X@ about 125asa and then developing for 5m30s in Dil H HC-110).[/size']

Everything you've said so far corresponds to all definitions of the perfect negative I have read or seen. Matching exposure, development and your printing method is how it's done.

This is, of course, perfectly legitimate if I get the results I want, but I am concerned that I might be going to end up with boxes full of negs that work for my current scanner but which may not scan well in other scanners and even may not conventionally print at all.

I'm dying laughing. I share your "quality time" experience with enlargers. Imagine how they felt with all the choices and changes (filters, light source, condenser versus diffused, not to mention when they stop production of the one paper that worked with the old enlarger. Sounds like Photography to me.

 

However, I almost feel I don’t know what it is that is bothering me, but that something is.

I think what could be bothering you is that you've finally achieved your goal. So, to give you a new one, Tri-X@125asa does sound a bit slow to me, like about 1.5 stops. But overexposing and underdeveloping is a classic for 35mm photography.

[Don'tknowmuch]

Thanks all. I'm grateful for your considered and helpful replies.

I think my worries are confirmed; I have been doing something wrong. Thank you for suggesting I look at my scanning procedure/digital workflow.

I have spent hours scanning and re-scanning negs from different exposure/development regimes since reading your replies, and have concluded that in my workflow I have been suckered into producing negs that my scanner likes. It is an old Epson flatbed (2450). Now, it would be easiest to blame the scanner (and I know it's not what you'd call "state of the art") but in all honesty I think I've been a bit mis-guided about how to make the most of it.

I seem to have more control allowed by the scanner software if I scan B+W negs as colour; I get more options in the menu system and I'm working on that. However it's still only an old flatbed and I'm probably spending a lot of time fiddling with this when I ought to be getting a bit more up to date. So I'm wondering about upping my ambition and finding the cash for a Coolscan. Coolscan 5000 is, I'm told by local good shop, current in the UK. We'll see.

I'd appreciate advice, if anyone on this forum has an opinion, about whether to think of a second-hand Coolscan V off eBay (which seem to top out at about £750) or a Coolscan 5000 which the shop have on sale at £999?

Thanks again. Back to scanning experiments...

Jim.

[andym911]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jim

 

on scanning I can only mention my observations.

 

I frequently use a Epson 4990 flatbed with good results, most of my pics posted on this forum have been scanned with this scanner.

I also print many of them with good results.

 

I recently bought a coolscan V and I do notice an improvement in sharpness, and overall tonal reproduction, not much but a bit.

 

Film flatness is better which is probably the reason for better sharpness although it really is not that noticeable.

 

Coming back to your original question on over exposing/under developing.

 

I as you know only really overrexpose about half a stop and under develop about 30 secs and the negs look good.Full tones and are not really thin.I scan them easily and just last week printed a few on my focomat with ease.(FIRST TIME IN DONKEY'S YEARS)

 

I am also a "learning by doing" person and have found the look I am after.....there again when I get my Ravilious prints next week I may just begin to cry at the comparison.

 

cheers

andy

[Photoskeptic]

Jim, since the advent of digital and scanning, I've changed the method I shoot bw a bit. I now shoot for the highlights and develop for the shadows. The reason I do this is Photoshop and CS4 and ACR. After scanning I import the image into ACR and digitally open up the shadows. This may not be everyone's cup of tea but it works for me and gives me what I want out of an image.

[dave_d]

"I now shoot for the highlights and develop for the shadows."

 

John, Would you please explain this in more detail?

[Photoskeptic]

Dave, perhaps a more thorough explanation is necessary because this is about scanned film. I got on to doing this because you can now open a film scan (tif file) in CS4 in ACR. So I shoot the film exposing for the highlights, usually f16, 1/1000, then scan and import into ACR. With the ACR tools (fill light, curves) you open up the shadows. NaturalIy I don't do this all the time, but there are certain shooting conditions where this works for me. Several images in my "Fog" folder of my website were shot using this technique. I hope this explanation is what you were looking for.

[dave_d]

John, thanks for the clarification. I was confused on how you chemically process film for the shadows. I like the dramatic look in your "Fog" portfolio, keep it up.