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/

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.

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.

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
-------------------

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

On 27 Jan 2004 15:53:36 -0800, (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 ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

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.

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

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

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 :-)