Ansel Adams - Which Book?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Postby Pim » Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:27 am

Thnx CJBas, I have nothing to add, only this:
O. said:“It makes no difference whatsoever to the tonal quality of the print, what development you give your film over a broad range, if you adjust the printing paper contrast.”
Now that is baloney!
Furthermore, you cannot simply cut back development to 2/3. First, your enlarger is of great influence, condensor or diffuser/ cold light, and between diffusers there is a difference aswell, second, tapwater is very different in different areas, the amount of minerals in your tapwater influences the strength of your developer, or you must use demineralised water all the time.
But as I said before, Othello will come back and say we're all ignorant and his way is the only one. Oh yeah, he will also say what's pleasing to our eye and that the shadow detail is not important to us!
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!


CJBas
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:06 pm

Postby CJBas » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:37 am

You're absolutely right, Pic, about the individual characteristics of your own enlarger and tap water. The differences in tap water alone seem to be able to have a greater effect than a lot of us take into consideration.

We each have to find what wroks for us in our own conditions.

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:11 am

Pim wrote:Thnx CJBas, I have nothing to add, only this:
O. said:“It makes no difference whatsoever to the tonal quality of the print, what development you give your film over a broad range, if you adjust the printing paper contrast.”
Now that is baloney!
Did you see the page to which I referred? Paul Butzi performed a series of tests, varying development over a wide range. The tonal distribution did not vary significantly when the paper contrast was adjusted to compensate for less development.

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm
Furthermore, you cannot simply cut back development to 2/3. First, your enlarger is of great influence, condensor or diffuser/ cold light, and between diffusers there is a difference as well, second, tapwater is very different in different areas, the amount of minerals in your tapwater influences the strength of your developer, or you must use demineralised water all the time.
I suggests starting at 2/3 reccommended times, based on my experience.
But as I said before, Othello will come back and say we're all ignorant and his way is the only one. Oh yeah, he will also say what's pleasing to our eye and that the shadow detail is not important to us!
Of course shadow detail is important. I never said it wasn't. I said that Kodak states that mid-tones are the most important of all, and I agree.

And the name is 'Ornello', not 'Othello'.

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Postby Pim » Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:09 am

Yes I did read it. Paul also says:

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. It seems unlikely that the results here can be generalized to other films, film developers, etc.


And then again, an underdeveloped neg may be printable on grade 5, and an overdeveloped one on grade 00, but as you should know, being able to print almost all your negs on grade 3, a neg that prints well on grade 2 1/2, 3 has its own different beauty on almost every grade, Ornello
Last edited by Pim on Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:20 am

Pim wrote:Yes I did read it. Paul also says:

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. It seems unlikely that the results here can be generalized to other films, film developers, etc.


And then again, an underdeveloped neg may be printable on grade 5, and an overdeveloped one on grade 00, but as you should know, being able to print almost all your negs on grade 3, a neg that prints well on grade 3 1/2, 3 has its own different beauty on almost every grade, Ornello
My point was merely that the same tonal distibution can be obtained over a wide range by adjusting paper contrast. That's what Butzi's findings show.
"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."
In fact, paper manufacturers design the various grades to do just that. The different grades of graded papers are designed to match pretty closely with film developed to different contrasts.

Given that film development guidelines often lead to excessive contrast, I would never develop more than 'N' anyway. My normal development is far less than recommended by the developer manufacturer (about 35% less).

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Postby Pim » Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:59 am

We know how you develop. The only thing we don't know about you are your photographs.
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:55 am

Pim wrote:We know how you develop. The only thing we don't know about you are your photographs.
I don't generally show my photos. I may have a few for inspection if someone here will point out a place where I can set up a few of them.
Last edited by Ornello on Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:04 pm

Pim wrote:Yes I did read it. Paul also says:

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. It seems unlikely that the results here can be generalized to other films, film developers, etc.


And then again, an underdeveloped neg may be printable on grade 5, and an overdeveloped one on grade 00, but as you should know, being able to print almost all your negs on grade 3, a neg that prints well on grade 2 1/2, 3 has its own different beauty on almost every grade, Ornello
Richard Knoppow had this to say in a similar thread on another forum. You'll note that it contains much of the same content as what I have provided:

"One reason Adams got interested in the Zone System was that he had problems with making good negatives of some of the subjects he photographed.

The Zone System is based on the idea that the contrast and density range of the negative should be adjusted according to the subject so that prints can always be made on "normal" contrast paper. That sounds like it makes sense but that's not always so. For instance, the visual contrast of the print must be acceptable to the eye. The eye judges contrast mostly by mid-gray tones. So, if a very high contrast scene is rendered with much lower overall contrast it will not look natural but, rather, will seem grayed down, even though there is a full range of tones from maximum black to paper white and detail in all sections. When a low contrast scene is made high contrast the eye may accept it because the eye seems more tolerant of an increase in contrast, but again, if the scene is a familiar one, it will look wrong.

Adams was also concerned with getting all the values in a scene recorded on the film. Although it's often thought that the films of the time shouldered off at fairly low densities the published curves for 1940's films show that most of them had pretty a pretty good range of densities.

Probably the most thorough work on tone reproduction was done under the leadership of Lloyd A. Jones of Kodak Research Labs. He and his associates published many papers describing their measurement of actual scene contrast and its reproduction. Jones also worked out the Kodak Speed system. This was later adopted by the ASA with some unfortunate changes. The current ISO method, while different than Jones' method still retains his idea that exposure should be sufficient to get the dark parts of the image which are to have detail far enough up the toe to have adequate contrast. Jones' criteria, based on tests with hundreds of prints of many differing subjects, was that the minimum contrast point should be no less than 1/3rd the gamma (contrast) of the straight line portion of the film characteristic. He found that images with less exposure were judged to be inferior while an increase in exposure did not make any difference over a range of a great many stops. In effect he found that there was a certain minimum exposure needed for good quality but that once this was reached increased exposure made little or no difference even though the negatives might be dense enough to be hard to print.

Because materials of the time showed increased grain and image spread with density (image spread leads to lower sharpness) he decided to base his speed system on the minimum exposure for good shadow detail.

All negatives were developed to the same contrast. The contrast was such as to result in a gamma of about 1.0 on the mid tones of the print. Reflection prints have a relatively limited range of tones from minimum to maximum, they can not, if viewed normally, have any tone brighter than the ambient illumination. Transparencies can be back illuminated or projected resulting in a much longer range of reproduced brightness.

The usual method of the time (and more so now with VC paper) was to make negatives of "normal" contrast and adjust the paper grade where the nature of the scene required something other than normal tonal rendition.

Where the tone rendition must be distorted, that is different contrast values in shadows, mid-tones, and highlights, it must be done by burning and dodging or by using a mask to accomplish the same purpose. Simply adjusting negative contrast will not do it."

--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickb...@ix.dot.com

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:25 pm

CJBas wrote: The differences in tap water alone seem to be able to have a greater effect than a lot of us take into consideration.
Yes, which is why modern film developers are well `buffered` to prevent shifts in pH to minimize this problem. Also sequestering agents are added to prevent sludging in hard water areas.
As you have also pointed out, differences in enlarger light sources with condenser or diffuse light sources means that film development should be adjusted as required and for personal preference, which is why there can not be a universally accepted development time that suits every body.
Different types of developer `can` and `does` have an effect on the films speed yield. For example, an extra fine grain developer such as Kodak Microdol-X or Ilford Perceptol provides finer grain than that of D-76 and ID11 at the expense of some loss of emulsion speed. A speed increasing developer such as Microphen will give a slight boost in speed, but with slightly coarser grain than D-76/ID11.
Once a personal development time is established so that the majority of negatives print easily on a `normal` contrast grade of paper, then a change in paper grade will take care of differences in lighting conditions of the scene which was photographed.
Last edited by Keith Tapscott. on Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:40 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
CJBas wrote:You're absolutely right, Pic, about the individual characteristics of your own enlarger and tap water. The differences in tap water alone seem to be able to have a greater effect than a lot of us take into consideration.

We each have to find what wroks for us in our own conditions.
Yes, which is why modern film developers are well `buffered` to prevent shifts in pH to minimize this problem, also sequestering agents are added to prevent sludging in hard water areas.
Packaged D-76 is supposed to contain a formula that is buffered, and thus closely corresponding to D-76 'D'.

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/D-76

Old copies of the British Journal of Photography Annual from about 1965-1986 contain useful formulary sections, written by Geoffrey Crawley.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:17 pm

Ornello wrote:
Packaged D-76 is supposed to contain a formula that is buffered, and thus closely corresponding to D-76 'D'.

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/D-76

Old copies of the British Journal of Photography Annual from about 1965-1986 contain useful formulary sections, written by Geoffrey Crawley.
I have corresponded with some photo-chemist`s about this, quoting "Some Properties of Fine-Grain Developers for Motion Picture Film" by H.C. Carlton & J.I. Crabtree. Commercial D-76 does have some additional buffering, but is `not` D-76d. Much of this is due to the preserving agents added to make the `single-powder` products more stable with the greater buffering capacity being a bonus.
D-76d (also known as Ilford ID-166) gives disappointing results when compared to the `ORIGINAL` formula. Sometimes MSDS can be misleading and we get 2+2=5. :!:
For optimum results, buy the Kodak or Ilford products.

http://www.google.com/patents

Look for US Patent Number: 2,893,865

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:09 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Packaged D-76 is supposed to contain a formula that is buffered, and thus closely corresponding to D-76 'D'.

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/D-76

Old copies of the British Journal of Photography Annual from about 1965-1986 contain useful formulary sections, written by Geoffrey Crawley.
I have corresponded with some photo-chemist`s about this, quoting "Some Properties of Fine-Grain Developers for Motion Picture Film" by H.C. Carlton & J.I. Crabtree. Commercial D-76 does have some additional buffering, but is `not` D-76d. Much of this is due to the preserving agents added to make the `single-powder` products more stable with the greater buffering capacity being a bonus.
D-76d (also known as Ilford ID-166) gives disappointing results when compared to the `ORIGINAL` formula. Sometimes MSDS can be misleading and we get 2+2=5. :!:
For optimum results, buy the Kodak or Ilford products.

http://www.google.com/patents

Look for US Patent Number: 2,893,865
What were these "disappointing results" or which you speak? In Table VI, page 433 of the reprint from Some Properties of Fine-Grain Developers for Motion Picture Film, the graininess for both D-76 and D-76 'D' is listed as 'average', with similar developing times. Stability (discussed on page 424) is markedly superior with the buffered version.

Some of Crawley's FX-series (FX-4, FX-7, FX-15, etc.) use a similar buffering scheme; I have mixed up and used these developers with perfect results.

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx15.html

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx18.html

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx19.html

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Postby Jim Appleyard » Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:09 pm

[quote="Ornello"][quote="Pim"]We know how you develop. The only thing we don't know about you are your photographs.[/quote]

I don't generally show my photos. I may have a few for inspection if someone here will point out a place where I can set up a few of them.[/quote]

Why?

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:07 am

Jim Appleyard wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Pim wrote:We know how you develop. The only thing we don't know about you are your photographs.
I don't generally show my photos. I may have a few for inspection if someone here will point out a place where I can set up a few of them.
Why?
I just don't feel that what interests me interests others. My work is mostly for my own pleasure, and does not include time exposures of waterfalls, landscapes, or the other typical sorts of B&W images that so many people find fascinating, but bore me to tears...

For the past couple of years I have been photographing old buildings and bridges in the industrial areas of my home town. I have used a very long lens (the 560 mm Telyt-R) to get close-up details of rust patterns...if that sort of thing interests you, I'll show some of them...

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Postby Pim » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:04 pm

The info on the silvergrain page is ok. Thnx O.
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest