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
|
|||
|
|||
35mm on grade 3 explained
I have often stated that 35mm film should be developed to print on
(about) grade 3 rather than grade 2. Here is the explanation, from Kodak, in 'Kodak Films for Black-and-White Photography', 1960.: "....a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative combination." Here's the context: "Graininess. When a negative is viewed at a sufficiently high magnification, it is seen to possess a grainy or granular structure. This impression of non-uniformity in the image is called graininess. It is caused by the irregular distribution of the silver grains, rather than by the individual grains themselves which are visible only under magnifications much greater than are used in making ordinary enlargements. For emulsions of a given general type, graininess tends to increase with the emulsion speed. When development is carried to the same gradient, the common developers of normal and high activity (e.g., Kodak Developers DK-50, D-72, and Dektol) produce approximately equal graininess with a given film. Some fine-grain developers (e.g., Kodak Developers DK-20 and Microdol) produce noticeably less graininess but at the expense of some loss of speed. Graininess of the print increases with the density of the negative, ..so overexposure or overdevelopment of the latter should be avoided. The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative combination. The graininess reproduced in the print is most apparent in the lighter middle tones, especially in large, uniform areas. It is possible to conceal graininess somewhat by softening the focus in enlarging, or by using a paper with a rough surface, but only at some sacrifice in sharpness." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"PGG" schreef in bericht newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com... I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain. However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable. Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast. Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why. And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond Monochrome". And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4 x 5 "! Third drawback: a little loss of speed. Jan On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:10:08 -0700, Michael Scarpitti wrote: I have often stated that 35mm film should be developed to print on (about) grade 3 rather than grade 2. Here is the explanation, from Kodak, in 'Kodak Films for Black-and-White Photography', 1960.: "....a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative combination." Here's the context: "Graininess. When a negative is viewed at a sufficiently high magnification, it is seen to possess a grainy or granular structure. This impression of non-uniformity in the image is called graininess. It is caused by the irregular distribution of the silver grains, rather than by the individual grains themselves which are visible only under magnifications much greater than are used in making ordinary enlargements. For emulsions of a given general type, graininess tends to increase with the emulsion speed. When development is carried to the same gradient, the common developers of normal and high activity (e.g., Kodak Developers DK-50, D-72, and Dektol) produce approximately equal graininess with a given film. Some fine-grain developers (e.g., Kodak Developers DK-20 and Microdol) produce noticeably less graininess but at the expense of some loss of speed. Graininess of the print increases with the density of the negative, .so overexposure or overdevelopment of the latter should be avoided. The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative combination. The graininess reproduced in the print is most apparent in the lighter middle tones, especially in large, uniform areas. It is possible to conceal graininess somewhat by softening the focus in enlarging, or by using a paper with a rough surface, but only at some sacrifice in sharpness." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
"PGG" schreef in bericht newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com... I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain. However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable. Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast. That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain. Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast. Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why. And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond Monochrome". It really should make no significant difference. See below. See: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He states: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print, so any differences we find are from the changes in development and print contrast. Paul Butzi: "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." And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4 x 5 "! Third drawback: a little loss of speed. Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
"PGG" schreef in bericht newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com... I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain. However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable. Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast. That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain. Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast. Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why. And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond Monochrome". It really should make no significant difference. See below. See: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He states: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print, so any differences we find are from the changes in development and print contrast. Paul Butzi: "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." And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4 x 5 "! Third drawback: a little loss of speed. Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl... Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why. And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond Monochrome". It really should make no significant difference. See below. See: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He states: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print, so any differences we find are from the changes in development and print contrast. Paul Butzi: "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." Please bear in mind that my results are quite specifically linked to one film (Tmax-100) and to two specific papers, Kodak PolyMax IIrc and Ilford MGIV fb. On my web page, I quite clearly state : "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. " I then go on to say "It seems unlikely that the results here can be generalized to other films, film developers, etc." I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the results of my testing. It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly. -Paul www.butzi.net |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com... "Jan T" wrote in message li.nl... Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why. And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond Monochrome". It really should make no significant difference. See below. See: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He states: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print, so any differences we find are from the changes in development and print contrast. Paul Butzi: "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." Please bear in mind that my results are quite specifically linked to one film (Tmax-100) and to two specific papers, Kodak PolyMax IIrc and Ilford MGIV fb. On my web page, I quite clearly state : "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. " I then go on to say "It seems unlikely that the results here can be generalized to other films, film developers, etc." You have no basis for that statement. You have not tested other materials. You could perform the test on other films and papers if you wish. But what's important is that what tests you HAVE performed suport the principle of reducing development times and using harder paper, and since such reduced times benefit the small negative overall, this is to be encouraged, even if the tonal distribution is not as similar as what you have shown on this particular combination. One would be advised to try different papers if the first tests are unsatisfactory. I have been unable to get Agfa Brovira to work well with Ilford films in a condenser enlarger, no matter how I developed the film. The highlights simply would not print. That paper is gone now, anyway, so it's no big loss. Ilford Gallerie works splendidly, I might add. I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the results of my testing. I did not 'misrepresent' the results of your testing. I cited it as a counter-example to a claim that someone made that 'tonality' would suffer. As in all things related to the negative-positive process, some combos work better than others. Shortening the development time does not change the curve SHAPE that much. The main problem would be the curve shape of the paper being used. This is more likely to be vary by the brand, not the filter being used. It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly. But Paul, you are not the first to have known this. I have known for 35 years, at least, that 35mm film should be developed to a softer contrast and printed on harder paper, and than sheet film can handle more development. This is not 'news', at least not to me. You have simply taken the time to explore this systematically. Kodak's statement is clear enough: "The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient of the other. IT IS USUALLY TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT A LOW GRADIENT IN THE NEGATIVE MATERIAL AND A CORRESPONDINGLY HIGH GRADIENT IN THE PAPER IS MORE FAVORABLE THAN THE ALTERNATIVE COMBINATION. (My emphasis) This statement by Kodak is unequivocal: there is something to be gained by using a softer negative and a harder paper from the standpoint of graininess (and, of course, overall definition as well). You may note that Kodak's portrait papers (Opal, Ektalure, etc) were available in one grade, and according to Kodak, they were close to grade 3, NOT grade 2. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
Removing 35mm mask on Durst M606? | Luigi de Guzman | In The Darkroom | 4 | March 1st 04 04:09 AM |
split grade printing - can it be done with only G5 +G0 filters? | Jules Flynn | In The Darkroom | 3 | February 7th 04 04:46 AM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |