Best CI for process, was RE: shadow density in zone III

So let me ask again. What film/developer/agitation/temperature
combination should one use for N development of in- camera negatives
when the density range required for scenes of normal contrast is log
3.0 or above?

And what should one do when the scene requires N+ development?

My best estimate for most common films is that you can't get there from here.

Sandy

>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 21:26:39 2005