A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

35mm on grade 3 explained



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 04, 08:10 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 35mm on grade 3 explained

I have often stated that 35mm film should be developed to print on
(about) grade 3 rather than grade 2.

Here is the explanation, from Kodak, in 'Kodak Films for
Black-and-White Photography', 1960.:

"....a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly
high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative
combination."


Here's the context:

"Graininess.
When a negative is viewed at a sufficiently high magnification, it is
seen to possess a grainy or granular structure. This impression of
non-uniformity in the image is called graininess. It is caused by the
irregular distribution of the silver grains, rather than by the
individual grains themselves which are visible only under
magnifications much greater than are used in making ordinary
enlargements.

For emulsions of a given general type, graininess tends to increase
with the emulsion speed. When development is carried to the same
gradient, the common developers of normal and high activity (e.g.,
Kodak Developers DK-50, D-72, and Dektol) produce approximately equal
graininess with a given film. Some fine-grain developers (e.g., Kodak
Developers DK-20 and Microdol) produce noticeably less graininess but
at the expense of some loss of speed.
Graininess of the print increases with the density of the negative,
..so overexposure or overdevelopment of the latter should be avoided.

The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the
negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is
more favorable than the alternative combination.

The graininess reproduced in the print is most apparent in the lighter
middle tones, especially in large, uniform areas.

It is possible to conceal graininess somewhat by softening the focus
in enlarging, or by using a paper with a rough surface, but only at
some sacrifice in sharpness."
  #2  
Old September 11th 04, 09:38 AM
Jan T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"PGG" schreef in bericht
newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...
I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain.
However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable.


Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for
the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film
developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast.

Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
Monochrome".

And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit
personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my
APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I
was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4
x 5 "!

Third drawback: a little loss of speed.

Jan



On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:10:08 -0700, Michael Scarpitti wrote:

I have often stated that 35mm film should be developed to print on
(about) grade 3 rather than grade 2.

Here is the explanation, from Kodak, in 'Kodak Films for
Black-and-White Photography', 1960.:

"....a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly
high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative
combination."


Here's the context:

"Graininess.
When a negative is viewed at a sufficiently high magnification, it is
seen to possess a grainy or granular structure. This impression of
non-uniformity in the image is called graininess. It is caused by the
irregular distribution of the silver grains, rather than by the
individual grains themselves which are visible only under
magnifications much greater than are used in making ordinary
enlargements.

For emulsions of a given general type, graininess tends to increase
with the emulsion speed. When development is carried to the same
gradient, the common developers of normal and high activity (e.g.,
Kodak Developers DK-50, D-72, and Dektol) produce approximately equal
graininess with a given film. Some fine-grain developers (e.g., Kodak
Developers DK-20 and Microdol) produce noticeably less graininess but
at the expense of some loss of speed.
Graininess of the print increases with the density of the negative,
.so overexposure or overdevelopment of the latter should be avoided.

The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the
negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is
more favorable than the alternative combination.

The graininess reproduced in the print is most apparent in the lighter
middle tones, especially in large, uniform areas.

It is possible to conceal graininess somewhat by softening the focus
in enlarging, or by using a paper with a rough surface, but only at
some sacrifice in sharpness."




  #3  
Old September 11th 04, 06:24 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
"PGG" schreef in bericht
newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...
I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain.
However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable.


Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for
the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film
developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast.


That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this
for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain.
Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast.

Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
Monochrome".


It really should make no significant difference. See below.

See:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
states:

Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
print contrast.

Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."

And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit
personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my
APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I
was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4
x 5 "!

Third drawback: a little loss of speed.


Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous!
  #4  
Old September 11th 04, 06:24 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
"PGG" schreef in bericht
newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...
I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain.
However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable.


Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for
the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film
developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast.


That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this
for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain.
Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast.

Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
Monochrome".


It really should make no significant difference. See below.

See:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
states:

Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
print contrast.

Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."

And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit
personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my
APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I
was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4
x 5 "!

Third drawback: a little loss of speed.


Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous!
  #5  
Old September 13th 04, 03:02 AM
Paul Butzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...


Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
Monochrome".


It really should make no significant difference. See below.

See:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
states:

Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
print contrast.

Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."


Please bear in mind that my results are quite specifically linked to
one film (Tmax-100) and to two specific papers, Kodak PolyMax IIrc and
Ilford MGIV fb.

On my web page, I quite clearly state : "Several questions remain - do
this results apply to other films as well? TMX in TMax-RS developer
produces a very linear film characteristic curve. If the film curve
changes shape with changes in development, then there would also be
the effect of the change in film curve to factor in. Different VC
papers have different tonal distributions, and different changes in
curve shape as you adjust contrast. "

I then go on to say "It seems unlikely that the results here can be
generalized to other films, film developers, etc."

I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the results of my
testing. It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly.

-Paul
www.butzi.net
  #6  
Old September 13th 04, 03:02 AM
Paul Butzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...


Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
Monochrome".


It really should make no significant difference. See below.

See:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
states:

Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
print contrast.

Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."


Please bear in mind that my results are quite specifically linked to
one film (Tmax-100) and to two specific papers, Kodak PolyMax IIrc and
Ilford MGIV fb.

On my web page, I quite clearly state : "Several questions remain - do
this results apply to other films as well? TMX in TMax-RS developer
produces a very linear film characteristic curve. If the film curve
changes shape with changes in development, then there would also be
the effect of the change in film curve to factor in. Different VC
papers have different tonal distributions, and different changes in
curve shape as you adjust contrast. "

I then go on to say "It seems unlikely that the results here can be
generalized to other films, film developers, etc."

I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the results of my
testing. It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly.

-Paul
www.butzi.net
  #7  
Old September 13th 04, 02:40 PM
Uranium Committee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...


Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
Monochrome".


It really should make no significant difference. See below.

See:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
states:

Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
print contrast.

Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."


Please bear in mind that my results are quite specifically linked to
one film (Tmax-100) and to two specific papers, Kodak PolyMax IIrc and
Ilford MGIV fb.

On my web page, I quite clearly state : "Several questions remain - do
this results apply to other films as well? TMX in TMax-RS developer
produces a very linear film characteristic curve. If the film curve
changes shape with changes in development, then there would also be
the effect of the change in film curve to factor in. Different VC
papers have different tonal distributions, and different changes in
curve shape as you adjust contrast. "

I then go on to say "It seems unlikely that the results here can be
generalized to other films, film developers, etc."


You have no basis for that statement. You have not tested other
materials. You could perform the test on other films and papers if you
wish. But what's important is that what tests you HAVE performed
suport the principle of reducing development times and using harder
paper, and since such reduced times benefit the small negative
overall, this is to be encouraged, even if the tonal distribution is
not as similar as what you have shown on this particular combination.
One would be advised to try different papers if the first tests are
unsatisfactory. I have been unable to get Agfa Brovira to work well
with Ilford films in a condenser enlarger, no matter how I developed
the film. The highlights simply would not print. That paper is gone
now, anyway, so it's no big loss. Ilford Gallerie works splendidly, I
might add.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the results of my
testing.


I did not 'misrepresent' the results of your testing. I cited it as a
counter-example to a claim that someone made that 'tonality' would
suffer. As in all things related to the negative-positive process,
some combos work better than others. Shortening the development time
does not change the curve SHAPE that much. The main problem would be
the curve shape of the paper being used. This is more likely to be
vary by the brand, not the filter being used.

It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly.


But Paul, you are not the first to have known this. I have known for
35 years, at least, that 35mm film should be developed to a softer
contrast and printed on harder paper, and than sheet film can handle
more development. This is not 'news', at least not to me. You have
simply taken the time to explore this systematically. Kodak's
statement is clear enough:

"The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. IT IS USUALLY TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT A LOW GRADIENT IN THE
NEGATIVE MATERIAL AND A CORRESPONDINGLY HIGH GRADIENT IN THE PAPER IS
MORE FAVORABLE THAN THE ALTERNATIVE COMBINATION. (My emphasis)

This statement by Kodak is unequivocal: there is something to be
gained by using a softer negative and a harder paper from the
standpoint of graininess (and, of course, overall definition as well).

You may note that Kodak's portrait papers (Opal, Ektalure, etc) were
available in one grade, and according to Kodak, they were close to
grade 3, NOT grade 2.
  #8  
Old September 13th 04, 04:24 PM
Alexis Neel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:
My prints are gorgeous!



Now THATS funny!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 30 September 12th 04 04:46 AM
Removing 35mm mask on Durst M606? Luigi de Guzman In The Darkroom 4 March 1st 04 05:09 AM
split grade printing - can it be done with only G5 +G0 filters? Jules Flynn In The Darkroom 3 February 7th 04 05:46 AM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne APS Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 08:34 AM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne Other Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 08:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.