Digital BW, The Print

Traditional compensating development techniques for negatives are not 
required to produce a good print when the negative is going to be 
scanned and not printed traditionally.  It is, in most circumstances, 
not material to the success of the print whether you use 'normal' or 
compensated development (N+ or N-).

How's that for an iconoclastic statement!

My premise was that as long as the negative was exposed correctly for 
the shadows (ie the density range of the negative was up off the toe) 
it would not matter whether you developed it for a 'normal time' or N- 
time or N+ time.

This makes sense to me because of how I believe the scanner and 
software work.  When you scan a negative and apply set points you are 
mapping a density range on the film to a set of numbers (say between 0 
and 16383 for a 14 bit scanner), and then mapping those numbers to a 
grey scale.  For example if the negative's optical density range is 
from .4 to 1.8 then if no data is clipped by set-points then the 
density of .4 produces a 100% black in the file and the density of 1.8 
produces a 0% black in the file.  If that same negative had been 
developed differently ( say N- ignoring the 1/3 stop more exposure) and 
its density range was .3 to 1.5 it would produce the same file.  .3 
gets mapped to 100% and 1.5 gets mapped to 0%.  So the scene brightness 
that produced the shadow density value of .3 or .4 produces the 100% 
black in the both cases  and the scene brightness that produced the 
highlight densities of 1.5 or 1.8 produces 0% black in both cases.  The 
absolute value of the densities produced by the development doesn't 
make any difference except perhaps in extreme cases with very high 
(3.3) or very low (.5) maximum densities.

I made a simple test yesterday that seems, to me, to validate that 
premise. Here was the set-up: I exposed took two rolls of film with 
each frame containing the same image.  I used the new plusx.  The first 
roll was at my 'normal' EI 64 ( exposed 1/60s @ 5.6) developed in D76 
1:1 for 7:15.  The second roll was exposed at EI 40 (exposed 1/60s @ 
f4) and developed for 5:00 D76 1:1.

As you would expect the 'normal' negative was much denser in the 
highlights.  I scanned one frame from each film strip on a sprintscan 
120 using vuescan.  The little density meter in vuescan (for whatever 
it is worth) gave a density range of ~.35 to ~1.85 for the 'normal' 
negative  and ~.4 to ~1.5 for the N- negative.  I set vuescan to scan 
B&W, 16 bit, Neutral color balance, with black and white points set to 
0%.

The two raw scans are  different as you would expect.  The N- histogram 
is offset a little further from the left  and was shorter in length 
than the 'normal'.  The set pointed scans were virtually identical-!!  
I made a levels adjustment to each image to bring the white point in to 
clip of the specular highlights in each image and the two images are 
pretty much indistinguishable.  Their histogram data is:

                    Normal            N-

Mean             178             182
Std Dev           52               51.9
Median           198             204

My new zone mantra is: expose for the shadows and let the highlights 
fall wherever they want.

It is arguable that a more dense negative is better because the scanner 
will extract more data into the raw scan file but that does not seem to 
make any practical difference.  Perhaps it would if you were to apply 
aggressive curves.

Kevin,

You are absolutely right - but only for conditions you tested, i.e., 
(1) the scene density range can be fully caputured on your film, and 
(2) the density range captured on film is within the capability of 
the scanner to render.

The need push (N+) to make a flat scene (low density range) more 
vibrant (more density range) is probably obsolete when you scan the 
film.  However, if your scene has a density range greater than the 
film is capable of capturing (N), than the range can never be 
regained in the scanning stage.  The same is true if the density 
range already captured on film is greater than the scanner is capable 
of rendering.  The latter probably does not apply to negative film 
which does not render dynamic range as high as color transparency 
film.  But for the former, the only way out of the mess would be a 
pull (N-) exposure.

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Gulstene 
<kevin@d...> wrote:
> Traditional compensating development techniques for negatives are 
not 
> required to produce a good print when the negative is going to be 
> scanned and not printed traditionally.  It is, in most 
circumstances, 
> not material to the success of the print whether you use 'normal' 
or 
> compensated development (N+ or N-).
> 
> How's that for an iconoclastic statement!
> 
> My premise was that as long as the negative was exposed correctly 
for 
> the shadows (ie the density range of the negative was up off the 
toe) 
> it would not matter whether you developed it for a 'normal time' or 
N- 
> time or N+ time.
> 
> This makes sense to me because of how I believe the scanner and 
> software work.  When you scan a negative and apply set points you 
are 
> mapping a density range on the film to a set of numbers (say 
between 0 
> and 16383 for a 14 bit scanner), and then mapping those numbers to 
a 
> grey scale.  For example if the negative's optical density range is 
> from .4 to 1.8 then if no data is clipped by set-points then the 
> density of .4 produces a 100% black in the file and the density of 
1.8 
> produces a 0% black in the file.  If that same negative had been 
> developed differently ( say N- ignoring the 1/3 stop more exposure) 
and 
> its density range was .3 to 1.5 it would produce the same file.  .3 
> gets mapped to 100% and 1.5 gets mapped to 0%.  So the scene 
brightness 
> that produced the shadow density value of .3 or .4 produces the 
100% 
> black in the both cases  and the scene brightness that produced the 
> highlight densities of 1.5 or 1.8 produces 0% black in both cases.  
The 
> absolute value of the densities produced by the development doesn't 
> make any difference except perhaps in extreme cases with very high 
> (3.3) or very low (.5) maximum densities.
> 
> I made a simple test yesterday that seems, to me, to validate that 
> premise. Here was the set-up: I exposed took two rolls of film with 
> each frame containing the same image.  I used the new plusx.  The 
first 
> roll was at my 'normal' EI 64 ( exposed 1/60s @ 5.6) developed in 
D76 
> 1:1 for 7:15.  The second roll was exposed at EI 40 (exposed 1/60s 
@ 
> f4) and developed for 5:00 D76 1:1.
> 
> As you would expect the 'normal' negative was much denser in the 
> highlights.  I scanned one frame from each film strip on a 
sprintscan 
> 120 using vuescan.  The little density meter in vuescan (for 
whatever 
> it is worth) gave a density range of ~.35 to ~1.85 for the 'normal' 
> negative  and ~.4 to ~1.5 for the N- negative.  I set vuescan to 
scan 
> B&W, 16 bit, Neutral color balance, with black and white points set 
to 
> 0%.
> 
> The two raw scans are  different as you would expect.  The N- 
histogram 
> is offset a little further from the left  and was shorter in length 
> than the 'normal'.  The set pointed scans were virtually identical-
!!  
> I made a levels adjustment to each image to bring the white point 
in to 
> clip of the specular highlights in each image and the two images 
are 
> pretty much indistinguishable.  Their histogram data is:
> 
>                     Normal            N-
> 
> Mean             178             182
> Std Dev           52               51.9
> Median           198             204
> 
> My new zone mantra is: expose for the shadows and let the 
highlights 
> fall wherever they want.
> 
> It is arguable that a more dense negative is better because the 
scanner 
> will extract more data into the raw scan file but that does not 
seem to 
> make any practical difference.  Perhaps it would if you were to 
apply 
> aggressive curves.

Hi Kevin,

> Traditional compensating development techniques for negatives are not
> required to produce a good print when the negative is going to be
> scanned and not printed traditionally.  It is, in most circumstances,
> not material to the success of the print whether you use 'normal' or
> compensated development (N+ or N-).

And...for the record, before reviewing your "experiment" ;-)  I disagree
with that.

Here is my take on it:

For N+ exposure/development, with N+ exposure you will get all the RANGE of
information on the film and could adjust it with setpoints to basically
"match" the N+ development, but because it's contained within a narrower
range on the film, it's compressed.  Therefore, if you did N+ development
that would spread out the image data, you would give your self more data
separation, and therefore "better/more" data when scanning.

But...for N- exposure/development.  With N- exposure, you are compressing
the range that exceeds the films capacity (with normal exposure) onto the
films capacity.  If you develop it normally, you will lose the
highlights...as they simply won't be developed.  If you did N- development,
that would bring out the highlights on the film, therefore giving you a
wider range of original image tonality.

Now, I'll have to review your "experiment" and see where it doesn't fit with
the above ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Hi Shilesh,

Thanks for your response.

> Kevin,
>
> You are absolutely right - but only for conditions you tested, i.e.,
> (1) the scene density range can be fully caputured on your film, and
> (2) the density range captured on film is within the capability of
> the scanner to render.

Yes that is true.  Mostly.
(1) If the scene brightness can't be captured on the film (like EV 500 
or something silly like that) then there is nothing you can do about it 
including adjusting development times.
(2) yes, definitely the density range of the film must be within your 
scanner's specs for this to work. The principle still applies.

>
> The need push (N+) to make a flat scene (low density range) more
> vibrant (more density range) is probably obsolete when you scan the
> film.  However, if your scene has a density range greater than the
> film is capable of capturing (N), than the range can never be
> regained in the scanning stage.  The same is true if the density
> range already captured on film is greater than the scanner is capable
> of rendering.  The latter probably does not apply to negative film
> which does not render dynamic range as high as color transparency
> film.  But for the former, the only way out of the mess would be a
> pull (N-) exposure.

As I've said this will not work in extreme cases.  I'll go out on a 
limb and suggest that this will work in the range of N-2 to N+2.  
Although my case for supporting N+2 is anecdotal.

>
> Regards.
>
> Shilesh
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Gulstene
> <kevin@d...> wrote:
>> Traditional compensating development techniques for negatives are
> not
>> required to produce a good print when the negative is going to be
>> scanned and not printed traditionally.  It is, in most
> circumstances,
>> not material to the success of the print whether you use 'normal'
> or
>> compensated development (N+ or N-).
>>
>> How's that for an iconoclastic statement!
>>
>> My premise was that as long as the negative was exposed correctly
> for
>> the shadows (ie the density range of the negative was up off the
> toe)
>> it would not matter whether you developed it for a 'normal time' or
> N-
>> time or N+ time.
>>
>> This makes sense to me because of how I believe the scanner and
>> software work.  When you scan a negative and apply set points you
> are
>> mapping a density range on the film to a set of numbers (say
> between 0
>> and 16383 for a 14 bit scanner), and then mapping those numbers to
> a
>> grey scale.  For example if the negative's optical density range is
>> from .4 to 1.8 then if no data is clipped by set-points then the
>> density of .4 produces a 100% black in the file and the density of
> 1.8
>> produces a 0% black in the file.  If that same negative had been
>> developed differently ( say N- ignoring the 1/3 stop more exposure)
> and
>> its density range was .3 to 1.5 it would produce the same file.  .3
>> gets mapped to 100% and 1.5 gets mapped to 0%.  So the scene
> brightness
>> that produced the shadow density value of .3 or .4 produces the
> 100%
>> black in the both cases  and the scene brightness that produced the
>> highlight densities of 1.5 or 1.8 produces 0% black in both cases.
> The
>> absolute value of the densities produced by the development doesn't
>> make any difference except perhaps in extreme cases with very high
>> (3.3) or very low (.5) maximum densities.
>>
>> I made a simple test yesterday that seems, to me, to validate that
>> premise. Here was the set-up: I exposed took two rolls of film with
>> each frame containing the same image.  I used the new plusx.  The
> first
>> roll was at my 'normal' EI 64 ( exposed 1/60s @ 5.6) developed in
> D76
>> 1:1 for 7:15.  The second roll was exposed at EI 40 (exposed 1/60s
> @
>> f4) and developed for 5:00 D76 1:1.
>>
>> As you would expect the 'normal' negative was much denser in the
>> highlights.  I scanned one frame from each film strip on a
> sprintscan
>> 120 using vuescan.  The little density meter in vuescan (for
> whatever
>> it is worth) gave a density range of ~.35 to ~1.85 for the 'normal'
>> negative  and ~.4 to ~1.5 for the N- negative.  I set vuescan to
> scan
>> B&W, 16 bit, Neutral color balance, with black and white points set
> to
>> 0%.
>>
>> The two raw scans are  different as you would expect.  The N-
> histogram
>> is offset a little further from the left  and was shorter in length
>> than the 'normal'.  The set pointed scans were virtually identical-
> !!
>> I made a levels adjustment to each image to bring the white point
> in to
>> clip of the specular highlights in each image and the two images
> are
>> pretty much indistinguishable.  Their histogram data is:
>>
>>                     Normal            N-
>>
>> Mean             178             182
>> Std Dev           52               51.9
>> Median           198             204
>>
>> My new zone mantra is: expose for the shadows and let the
> highlights
>> fall wherever they want.
>>
>> It is arguable that a more dense negative is better because the
> scanner
>> will extract more data into the raw scan file but that does not
> seem to
>> make any practical difference.  Perhaps it would if you were to
> apply
>> aggressive curves.
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> 
> I made a simple test yesterday that seems, to me, to validate that 
> premise. Here was the set-up: I exposed took two rolls of film with 
> each frame containing the same image.  I used the new plusx.  The 
first 
> roll was at my 'normal' EI 64 ( exposed 1/60s @ 5.6) developed in 
D76 
> 1:1 for 7:15.  The second roll was exposed at EI 40 (exposed 1/60s 
@ 
> f4) and developed for 5:00 D76 1:1.
> 
> As you would expect the 'normal' negative was much denser in the 
> highlights.  I scanned one frame from each film strip on a 
sprintscan 
> 120 using vuescan.  The little density meter in vuescan (for 
whatever 
> it is worth) gave a density range of ~.35 to ~1.85 for the 'normal' 
> negative  and ~.4 to ~1.5 for the N- negative.  I set vuescan to 
scan 
> B&W, 16 bit, Neutral color balance, with black and white points set 
to 
> 0%.
> 

Something here that I don't understand. For having a N and N-1 
negative you must expose them in the same way and develop 
differently. You have made different expositions so you have here a N 
negative and a "M negative" not a N-1.

Or, am I missing something??

Best Regards

António Vieira
http://www.livinginabox.net

> Something here that I don't understand. For having a N and N-1
> negative you must expose them in the same way...

Hi Antonio,

The +- exposure is different than normal for zones IV and above.  If you are
metering for Zone V, you have to adjust the exposure down by about 1/2 stop
for -1 and adjust the exposure up by about 1/2 stop for +1.  Remember, you
are compressing/expanding the highlights down/up.  There is no movement to
the shadows.

Austin

As you put more light on the negative, i.e., it turns darker, you must
reduce the film speed to gain shadow detail if you reduce development.
Conversely, as you put less light on the negative and increase development,
you must increase the film speed.   You can determine the speeds by trial
and (lots of) error, or you can determine the film speed by densitomer
readings.  I have them taped to my spotmeter for TMax 100 in TMax RS and PMK
pyro, and for TriX in D76 1:1.  It's in my backpack in another room, I've
been painting all day (not the artsy kind) and don't have the energy to go
get it, but it goes something like this with TMax 100 and TMax RS 1:9:
N=64.  N+1=100, N+2=125, N-2=40 or whatever, and so on.  Then the
development times decrease or increase for compressed or expanded
development, respectively.   Of course, this only works (when it works) for
sheet film where you may develop each sheet separately, unless you want to
carry a boatload of film magazines along.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <newsletters@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Zone Development Update (longish)



>
> I made a simple test yesterday that seems, to me, to validate that
> premise. Here was the set-up: I exposed took two rolls of film with
> each frame containing the same image.  I used the new plusx.  The
first
> roll was at my 'normal' EI 64 ( exposed 1/60s @ 5.6) developed in
D76
> 1:1 for 7:15.  The second roll was exposed at EI 40 (exposed 1/60s
@
> f4) and developed for 5:00 D76 1:1.
>
> As you would expect the 'normal' negative was much denser in the
> highlights.  I scanned one frame from each film strip on a
sprintscan
> 120 using vuescan.  The little density meter in vuescan (for
whatever
> it is worth) gave a density range of ~.35 to ~1.85 for the 'normal'
> negative  and ~.4 to ~1.5 for the N- negative.  I set vuescan to
scan
> B&W, 16 bit, Neutral color balance, with black and white points set
to
> 0%.
>

Something here that I don't understand. For having a N and N-1
negative you must expose them in the same way and develop
differently. You have made different expositions so you have here a N
negative and a "M negative" not a N-1.

Or, am I missing something??

Best Regards

Ant\ufffdnio Vieira
http://www.livinginabox.net



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/