RE: shadow density in zone III

Sandy wrote:

> In most cases we would like to have the ability to expose our film,
>develop it and print it so as to\ capture the full range of tonal ranges
>in the scene, from deepest shadows to highest highlight. What difference
>does it make if that is done with a negative that has a DR of 1.9 or 3.5?
>Is there some visual superiority to a print made from a negative with a DR
>of 3.0 as opposed to one made with a negative with a DR of 2.0?

I'm not Eric, but I'll put in my two cents worth anyway. As you know, what
we're doing is mapping scene luminances to print densities through two
nonlinear transforms. Although the same gross results can be obtained over
wide variations in the two transforms, assuming that the concatenation of
each transform pair is equivalent to each other transform pair, the
characteristics of the storage medium between the two transforms -- in this
case, the negative -- will influence the results at a more subtle level.
The fact that two transform pairs give the same *range* of print densities
does not mean that the *actual* densities at equivalent (small) points on
the two final prints will be the same, EVEN IF the overall curves are
identical.

In my experience, better prints result from using high-contrast negatives
and low-contrast printing processes (with the caveat that one avoids the
most nonlinear regions at the toe and shoulder of each material, except for
image areas where no detail is required in the print). I speculate that
this is because one can get smoother tonality and better separation of
values in one's negatives when the scene luminances are spread over a
negative DR of 3 than when they are spread over a DR of 1.5, and smoother
tonality and better separation in the negative produces smoother tonality
and better separation in the print. (Or, put the other way 'round,
smoothness of tonality and tonal separation that are lost in the transform
from scene luminances to negative densities cannot be recovered in the
printing process.)

Of course, this assumes that smoothness of tonality and separation of tones
are as good in low-contrast printing processes as in high-contrast ones --
if it were inferior, one would need to trade off one deficiency for the
other and choose the best compromise. In fact, the low-contrast printing
processes seem to be better in this regard (even in the case of VC S-G
papers), so there is an additional gain in the second transformation.

Now, the question becomes where the point of diminishing returns occurs --
how much smoothness and separation are required in a negative before
further improvement cannot be seen (or are not important) in the final
print? For 16x20 (inch) prints from 35mm negatives, all of the above is
critically important. For 11x14 contact prints from in-camera negatives,
probably not so much. I can tell the difference in 4x5 negatives enlarged
onto 8x10 S-G paper, but wouldn't call it earthshaking. In my experience,
back when all we knew to increase the contrast of Pt was dichromate, prints
from negatives suited to plain Pt were FAR superior to prints from
negatives that required contrast enhancement with dichromate to yield the
same range of print densities.

Best regards,

etienne
Received on Fri Sep 30 15:33:12 2005