Re: shadow density in zone III

Eric & Sandy,

This is an interesting thread.

I must admit that shooting small & medium format film or digital precludes me
from commenting intelligently on a workflow that involves using an in-camera
negative to get to the Platinum/Palladium print. So, my comments are based
on using digital negatives. (Let me say that I don't see the use of either
digital negatives or analogue negatives as being superior to the other. Each
has it's benefits and I think it is up to the photographer to pick the workflow
that he/she enjoys the most)

Given such a hybrid workflow, I divide it into two phases Image capture and
print making, since there is this disconnect where you go digital rather than
printing the in-camera negative.

In terms of capture with film, I want a negative that captures the entire
subject brightness range, but is not exposed more than necessary so that it can
easily be scanned. With the digital camera capture, I want a full histigram
with no clipping in the shadows or highlights.

That being said, once the image is digitized, there is a lot of freedom in
terms of choices of contrast grades of chemistry with Platinum/Palladium. You
are not stuck with having to match the fixed density range of the in-camera
negative with a particular contrast mix. (I know you can shoot the negative to
be whatever density range you want). Instead, you can pick a contrast mix
or exposure scale of your chemistry based on the characteristics of that
particular mix. How it will affect the look of the final image.

Currently I am using Na2 as my contrast method with Palladium. It is very
"precise". Dick Arentz has made up a chart of contrast mixes with 8 different
grades of contrast. I tend to use the lower half because it avoids any
appearance of "ink grain" in the print. I also know that the lower the contrast
grade (longer exposure scale), I will be able to use a less drastic Process
Adjustment Curve in to build my negative.

Working within these guidelines, I notice that there is actually quite a bit
of difference between these contrast grades on Dick's chart—similar to the
difference in grades of silver paper.

Thus, I pick a contrast grade based solely on the content of my image.

If I have an image with large areas of very subtle changes in the upper
midtones and highlights, I use a lower contrast mix (longer exposure scale) and the
appropriate color density/curve in my negative. This gives a nice, soft
image.

If I have an image with more fine detail, and a more "busy" image where
sharpness is more important than smoothness, I pick a higher contrast grade and use
the appropriate color density/curve in my negative. This gives an image
with more edge sharpness.

Thus I don't see for my workflow that one contrast mix/exposure scale is
superior and appropriate for all images.

By the way, Dick's chart shows the lowest contrast mix as a "1s" mix and I
have added two more exposure scales below that by further decreasing the Na2
that I add. I am probably using a range of exposure scales from about log 1.8
to log 2.5-2.7.

This is just my way of conceptualizing it and a workflow that works for me.
I know everyone has developed a workflow that is great for themselves and
produces fine results. But that's part of the fun–discovering how to get there
for yourself.

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
Purchase the eBook & PDN System for Your Own Custom Digital Negative Workflow
@
Precision Digital Negatives
PDN's Own 31-Step Tablet Now Available—produced by Stouffer Industries
Coming Soon—Curve Calculator II will let you choose your toes!
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com

In a message dated 9/30/05 9:22:21 AM, e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net writes:

> Sandy, It is not so much a need, but rather a choice based on ability to
> render the full scale. If ones choice of film, metal salts or other
> conditions are limiting their ability to capture a range of 3.0 ( such as
> full Stouffer's step tablet), then they are either setting out to fall back
> on a contrast aide or have yet to make a break through that shows that it is
> possible.
>
> Mark made a great point about density range and later use of a scanner.  The
> platinum/palladium print is far more suited to capture a full scale negative
> than many scanners. If you are making your negatives for other purposes, it
> makes sense to keep the range smaller and use your printing skills to expand
> it for the print at hand.
>
Received on Fri Sep 30 13:18:23 2005