Under Developed Negatives

I

Ian-Barber

Admin
Registered User
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,723
When people refer to negatives which look to be under developed, is this referring to ...

A) The total development time or
B) The amount of agitation it received through the development time
 
As far as I know it's not possible to make this distinction by examining a developed neg. Time, temperature, concentration and agitation all have the same effect on each individual halide crystal. They act interchangeably.
We seem to have settled on time as the most convenient variable and keep the others constant.
 
So there for, if I am finding that I am having to print using a high grade filter such as 4 or 5 to get some life into the high values then I ought to be thinking of maybe extending the development time a bit to see if it makes any difference
 
That seems reasonable. It's basic Zone System lore, really. Zone testing can be tedious, of course, but in the long run, it saves both time and money.
For the time being you might try intensification.
I'm familiar with two methods. First is selenium toning. In my experience it gives no more than half a grade, but others claim more. Second is chromium intensifier. This is a bleach-and-redevelop process, which can be repeated for even more contrast. I've heard it describes as "risky." It will increase grain size, but for modest enlargements from an LF neg, that isn't significant. Might be worth sacrificing a dud neg, before committing yourself.
I'm guessing now, but sepia toning might work too. I have no more information, but others might.
You haven't mentioned the developer, but if you're using a replenished developer, you might want to check that it is still OK. We have had discussions on the forum previously about certain developers fading away. Slice an exposed neg in half and process one in fresh and the other in the old stuff. Then side-by-side in the neg carrier.
 
In general, if the shadow areas of the negative appear as you expect and you're getting flat prints, then extend development time. I'd go 20% more, print, rinse-n-repeat until you get what you want. A 20% change will be enough that you should see some difference.
 
Alan9940 said:
In general, if the shadow areas of the negative appear as you expect and you're getting flat prints, then extend development time. I'd go 20% more, print, rinse-n-repeat until you get what you want. A 20% change will be enough that you should see some difference.
Click to expand...

I shall try that. The shadows appear to have good details, its just the mid-tones and high values which look a little muddy and need that filter 5 to give them a lift
 
Alan's advice is good.
I forgot to ask if this is a one-off. It's just possible that a lurking smidgeon of fixer is to blame.
 
Its not a one off, I am seeing it throughout a range of negatives, mainly from the pinhole camera
 
I didn't really think so, but it seemed worth asking. 20% next time is good advice.
 
Reciprocity is most likely to affect the shadows. Development won't bring them back.
If you are happy with the amount of detail you are getting, even though the negatives are flat, it seems that Alan's 20% method is the best. If that doesn't work and a further 20% doesn't work either, there may be another cause.
May I ask if the subjects themselves had very low contrast? Kodak used to call this "Subject Failure."
 
David M said:
May I ask if the subjects themselves had very low contrast? Kodak used to call this "Subject Failure."
Click to expand...

Yes on some of the negatives I do recall that the subjects had little separation when metered. This at the time wasn't really a great concern because as you know, you can increase contrast on a pin head when using a digital workflow but as I am finding, things in the darkroom are different.
 
Ian-Barber said:
Its not a one off, I am seeing it throughout a range of negatives, mainly from the pinhole camera
Click to expand...

Based on my experience, pinhole negs always require longer development as they tend to the flat side otherwise. However, I will bow to Martin's expertise if he chimes in here.
 
Ian-Barber said:
So there for, if I am finding that I am having to print using a high grade filter such as 4 or 5 to get some life into the high values then I ought to be thinking of maybe extending the development time a bit to see if it makes any difference
Click to expand...

Ian
Have you given any thought of using a post-development 'intensifier?

Ken
 
My journey has been in the other direction, from darkroom to screen.
I had to change my development for scanning. I was astonished at how a scan could rescue seemingly invisible detail from what looked like clear parts of the neg, but dismayed that highlights could block up so easily. Now my negs are much flatter. In the darkroom, you can print through any density, given time and patience, but a scanner simply throws up its hands and goes on strike.
Everything you do in wet photography isn't done for itself, but so that the next stage is easier. Negative development is adjusted to give the kind of negative you are going to need for the enlarger to make the kind of print you visualise on the paper you will use. If you generally aim to produce a neg that will print easily in the middle of the range of contrast (for that paper) you will have plenty of wriggle room for creative interpretation and fine adjustment. Film is exposed for the kind of development you will be giving...
...and so on.
That's why we measure the highlights and shadows. And that's why we invest some time and film in testing both exposure and development. Knowledge is never wasted.
You will read all kinds of advice on this testing. You will even find people claiming that such-snd-such a negative density is a particular Zone*. This is a misuse of the Zone System, although it may provide hours of harmless fun.
The testing is not done to establish some Eternal Densitometric Truth: it's to establish what happens with your particular apparatus and habits.

I'm beginning to ride the bee in my bonnet, so I'd better stop.

*Zones are print values and you can print any Zone from any negative density.
 
My intensions after to film from Digital was to use the hybrid workflow so I spend countless hours trying to perfect the scanning side to suit what I goal I was aiming for. The only film I used for a long time was FomaPan and this is probably the only film I have had to spend some time trying to get under control with development for the scanner to record texture at RGB 247,247,247 but can tend to flatten out a little moving towards the middle zones.

Having low contrast negatives for the scanning has never really presented me with an issue because as we know, we can increase contrast on an eyelash with tools such as Photoshop.

I guess at the end of the day its like anything, the more experience one has in a particular field, the easier it becomes. Having worked with Photoshop for over 23 years I no longer find it challenging so If I had the same amount of experience in the dark room one would probably say that about dark room work.
 
You seem pretty competent already. After 23 years in the darkroom, you'd outclass us all.
 
David M said:
You will read all kinds of advice on this testing. You will even find people claiming that such-snd-such a negative density is a particular Zone*. This is a misuse of the Zone System, although it may provide hours of harmless fun.
Click to expand...

Personally, I use a densitometer to measure for Zone I and Zone VIII because I find it easier and certainly more accurate to determine a proper Zone I density, and easier/faster to, at least, get me in the ball park for Zone VIII. Once I have the boundaries set, I start making real negatives of the subjects I typically shoot, then adjust based on experience. I've been known to adjust my personal EI, if I'm not getting the shadow detail I'm looking for and, conversely development if the high values aren't where I want them based on my normal darkroom printing. The Zone System is simply a guide (suggestion?) as to how to proceed. Oh, and I definitely don't spend hours testing; I HATE testing! ;)
 
I think almost everybody hates testing, but you only need to do it once. I don't have a densitometer (even though I'm very fond of gadgets) but otherwise I do much the same, adjusting as I go along.
The Zone System seems to be the most common way for people to get a grasp on what they're doing and what they're trying to do. I think it's particularly useful when discussing tonality, and I introduce it to people as a way of avoiding either "Quite dark but not actually black,"or "A sort of middling grey." and quoting numerical reflectivity. One is too loose, the other too precise. It takes all sorts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top