Overexpose and under-develop: Applicable to 120?

[kcf]

While I know overexposing and under-developing is ideal with 35 mm film, I am wondering if it is also desirable with 120 mm. I remember Ornello's citing Kodak's research indicating the greater the magnification the the greater the exposure needed, with the ensuing necessity of reduced development to compensate. What about 120? Since it takes less magnification, does it stand to reason the development times and ISO should be closer to the manufacturer's recommended time?

[bowzart]

I guess that my irresistible impulse to respond comes from the gut reaction I experience to the statement that "...overexposing and under-developing is ideal..." Neither overexposure nor underdevelopment can be ideal. A considered decision about the exposure, and a commensurate decision about development (read: correct exposure and development) is neither over, nor under. Over/under definitely implies "wrong". I hope that we can do better than that.

I can't speak regarding the reference you make. I wasn't here when it appeared.

[foolscape]

Contrast diminishes with increased distance between the enlarger lens and the paper. Yes, 35mm film would seem to require more contrast in this respect, but I would think, at the sacrifice of detail. I agree with the previous post. Get the best exposure and development, and let the paper grade or contrast filter do the rest. It's hard to have true Zone System controls on roll film, so get all of the information available onto the film, and adjust during printing. I have printed from 8x10 up to 16x20 from 35mm and had very little difference in the image contrast just by going from grade 2 to 3 or 4.

--Gary

[Ornello]

While I know overexposing and under-developing is ideal with 35 mm film, I am wondering if it is also desirable with 120 mm. I remember Ornello's citing Kodak's research indicating the greater the magnification the the greater the exposure needed, with the ensuing necessity of reduced development to compensate. What about 120? Since it takes less magnification, does it stand to reason the development times and ISO should be closer to the manufacturer's recommended time?

In doing my research, I came across a table showing the degree of development used in various sorts of photography in an old Photo Lab Index. The amount of development used on motion-picture film (which is enlarged enormously on the screen in a theatre) was less than for any other application...the light went on in my brain right then.

There is an optimum for everything. Small negatives benefit significantly from more generous exposure and less development than ISO standards call for, but remember this is only a small amount (maybe 2/3 stop increase in exposure, maybe 30% less development. 120 format is not enlarged nearly as much so there's really no need to do this unless you're making murals.

[kcf]

Thank you, Gary.

Thank you, Bowzart.

Thank you, Ornello.