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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
May I know what would be the difference in the resulting print if:
1. I extend the film development time. And reduce explosure according to the Kodak instruction. This would increase film contrast. 2. Use normal film development. But use high contrast print paper to enlarge the print. What is the difference in the resulting print ? Ming. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
Using Kodak's method contrast will increase, but you may (will?) loose
shadow details. Jorge Ming wrote in news May I know what would be the difference in the resulting print if: 1. I extend the film development time. And reduce explosure according to the Kodak instruction. This would increase film contrast. 2. Use normal film development. But use high contrast print paper to enlarge the print. What is the difference in the resulting print ? Ming. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
Ming wrote in message ...
May I know what would be the difference in the resulting print if: 1. I extend the film development time. And reduce explosure according to the Kodak instruction. This would increase film contrast. 2. Use normal film development. But use high contrast print paper to enlarge the print. What is the difference in the resulting print ? Ming. Keeping the developing time as it it and upping the paper grade will be better for 35mm. The grain will be finer and the image sharper than if you extend film development. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
You're trying to start flame war aren't you? :-)
What I do is determine the exposure based on the shadow and I control the contrast of the negative with the development time. While it's harder to do with roll film it is possible and does work. When taking my first zone system class one of our assignments was to find a three stop scene and an eight stop scene. We where then to expose an entire roll of film at each scene, cut the rolls in half and develop half with normal development time and the other half with N+2 and N-2 development times. Afterwords we made the best print we could from a frame of each scene developed at N and the altered development time. In a class of twenty students it was striking to see the differences in the prints. After seeing the results of that assignment I went from being ambivalentSP? about the zone system to being a believer. Ming wrote: : May I know what would be the difference in the resulting print if: : 1. I extend the film development time. And reduce explosure according : to the Kodak instruction. This would increase film contrast. : 2. Use normal film development. But use high contrast print paper to : enlarge the print. : What is the difference in the resulting print ? : Ming. : -- : Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
Ming
Here are two more ways to higher contrast. Selenium tone the negative and/or use a high contrast developer such as Edwal G. BTW does anybody know if Edwal G and Edwal 120 are one and the same? Dan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
Dan Quinn wrote: John wrote Dan Quinn wrote: Here are two more ways to higher contrast. Selenium tone the negative and/or use a high contrast developer such as Edwal G. Do note that most any toner will work. Sulfide toners may have the most dramatic effect as they can shift the color of the image in the film and in my experience this can actually be super-proportional to the amount of silver in the image. A 1.5 grade increase on contrast is relatively easy for toners such as Polytoner (no longer made). BTW does anybody know if Edwal G and Edwal 120 are one and the same? Also are they still being made now that Edwal was sold ? I've been trying to find an article which relates paper exposure times to contrast shifts; longer exposure, higher contrast. I've not found that article yet but did find some indirect evidence from Kodak's film data sheets. As film exposure times go beyond a few seconds a reduction in development time is indicated. That implies an increase in contrast with long exposures. Likely that applies to paper as well. How practical the technique may be in use probably depends on one's patients. Dan I'm not sure adjusted development times imply this, though I don't know for certain. Reduced development times Kodak recommends are used only in conjunction with increased exposure recommendations to compensate for reciprocity failure during long exposures. I would assume the slightly decreased development times are to prevent over development/exposure of critical highlights, while still maintaining proper mid tone and shadow density gained from the exposure corrections. The concept seems confusing to me, i.e., someone would have to explain to me the physics of increasing contrast from the standpoint of reciporcity failure. If that were realistic, you shouldn't need any exposure increase for reciprocity. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
John wrote
Dan Quinn wrote: Here are two more ways to higher contrast. Selenium tone the negative and/or use a high contrast developer such as Edwal G. Do note that most any toner will work. Sulfide toners may have the most dramatic effect as they can shift the color of the image in the film and in my experience this can actually be super-proportional to the amount of silver in the image. A 1.5 grade increase on contrast is relatively easy for toners such as Polytoner (no longer made). BTW does anybody know if Edwal G and Edwal 120 are one and the same? Also are they still being made now that Edwal was sold ? I've been trying to find an article which relates paper exposure times to contrast shifts; longer exposure, higher contrast. I've not found that article yet but did find some indirect evidence from Kodak's film data sheets. As film exposure times go beyond a few seconds a reduction in development time is indicated. That implies an increase in contrast with long exposures. Likely that applies to paper as well. How practical the technique may be in use probably depends on one's patients. Dan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
Tom Phillips wrote
Dan Quinn wrote: I've been trying to find an article which relates paper exposure times to contrast shifts; longer exposure, higher contrast. I've not found that article yet but did find some indirect evidence from Kodak's film data sheets. As film exposure times go beyond a few seconds a reduction in development time is indicated. That implies an increase in contrast with long exposures. Likely that applies to paper as well. How practical the technique may be in use probably depends on one's patients. Dan I'm not sure adjusted development times imply this, though I don't know for certain. Reduced development times Kodak recommends are used only in conjunction with increased exposure recommendations to compensate for reciprocity failure during long exposures. I would assume the slightly decreased development times are to prevent over development/exposure of critical highlights, while still maintaining proper mid tone and shadow density gained from the exposure corrections. The concept seems confusing to me, i.e., someone would have to explain to me the physics of increasing contrast from the standpoint of reciporcity failure. If that were realistic, you shouldn't need any exposure increase for reciprocity. Barring evidence to the contrary, Kodak's instructing shorter development times confirms in my mind the increase in contrast due to very long exposures. But it is not the long exposure times, rather it is the very low level of light which is the cause. Reciprocity failure is greatest in the shadow areas. The film sees a more contrasty landscape. For scenes where in lie areas above and below the failure point keep that in mind; something I've not been doing but will in the future. Good thing you responded to my post. Dan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Extend film development or high grade paper ?
Dan Quinn wrote: Tom Phillips wrote Dan Quinn wrote: I've been trying to find an article which relates paper exposure times to contrast shifts; longer exposure, higher contrast. I've not found that article yet but did find some indirect evidence from Kodak's film data sheets. As film exposure times go beyond a few seconds a reduction in development time is indicated. That implies an increase in contrast with long exposures. Likely that applies to paper as well. How practical the technique may be in use probably depends on one's patients. Dan I'm not sure adjusted development times imply this, though I don't know for certain. Reduced development times Kodak recommends are used only in conjunction with increased exposure recommendations to compensate for reciprocity failure during long exposures. I would assume the slightly decreased development times are to prevent over development/exposure of critical highlights, while still maintaining proper mid tone and shadow density gained from the exposure corrections. The concept seems confusing to me, i.e., someone would have to explain to me the physics of increasing contrast from the standpoint of reciporcity failure. If that were realistic, you shouldn't need any exposure increase for reciprocity. Barring evidence to the contrary, Kodak's instructing shorter development times confirms in my mind the increase in contrast due to very long exposures. It's certainly made me do a little thinking and reading. Henry (2nd ed.) confirms my statement above, and James 4th ed. (chapter 4 sec. II) notes reciprocity failure can affect the rate of development (i.e., result in a lower rate of development.) Meaning in order to correct your expected density due to reciprocity failure you sometimes need to apply both time and adjusted development. Also, if what you think above were an applied general principle (which it would have to be, I think), it wouldn't seem to matter what film or other sensitized material was involved. But adjusted development is required only for some films and not others (I don't know why.) Reciprocity corrections for Tmax, for instance, lists only time adjustment recommendations with no development adjustments, while some other films (Tri-X) list both. Now, according to James reciprocity failure not only depends on the overall magnitude of exposure, but also can be affected by the individual components of that exposure (i.e., the intensity and time components of the exposure principle E=IxT.) Time scale components plotted from reciprocity failure curves show greater density than curves plotted only from intensity scale components. But changes in development rate is apparently the reason, since again it only applies to some films and not others. Henry confirms this (page 193), stating that an increase in exposure time for correction of reciprocity failure results in a disproportionately greater density in the highlights than the shadows, which thus requires a decrease in development times. So agin, you need both time and development correction. Again, I don't know why this doesn't apply to all films. But it is not the long exposure times, rather it is the very low level of light which is the cause. Long exposure times are indicative of low light levels where the principle "exposure = Intensity x Time" used to produce normal or expected negative density is no longer constant. So, if you use a longer printing time you necessarily must reduce intensity. So, it seems to me that instead of somehow increasing contrast you'd rather run in to reciprocity failure which reduces expected print density and lessens contrast. Henry (page 102) performed paper reciprocity failure tests up to 128 seconds and reported only the expected decrease in print reflection densities, which could be compensated for by again extending the printing time (corrections up to 540 seconds.) Yet he reported no increase in contrast or apparent contrast by such long printing times. Of course I could be wrong. But I so far can't find anything referring to an increase in density or apparent contrast due to the length of print exposure time. Of course you can do this by extending the print development time, but all you do is move the paper curve, rather than gain any actual additiona contrast. Reciprocity failure is greatest in the shadow areas. The film sees a more contrasty landscape. For scenes where in lie areas above and below the failure point keep that in mind; something I've not been doing but will in the future. Good thing you responded to my post. Dan It made me crack open James, which is always time well spent if difficult reading :-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|