Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Best 400 ISO Film for Contrast?
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Mon Nov 22 16:46:49 2004

On 11/22/04 2:37 PM, "Robert Marvin" <marvbej@earthlink.net> typed:

> What's so important about contrast in negatives? For the last year or
> two I've been using split D23 (were the first bath is straight D23 and
> the second is a 20 percent borax solution). This gives me lots of
> shadow detail without blown highlights BUT my standard Ilford
> Multigrade filter, with a condenser enlarger,  is # 3-1/2 instead of #
> 2 using HP5 and FP4--SO WHAT? I'm happy with my prints. I've tried
> Rodinal 1:50 recently with FP4. The negatives print with a # 2 filter,
> but I still slightly prefer the look of the split D23.
> 
> Bob Marvin
> 
> On Monday, November 22, 2004, at 10:36  AM, GREG LORENZO wrote:
> 
>>  I picked up a roll of Ilford HP5+ as the photo shop had no Tri-X.
>> Nice film but I found it lacking contrast
> 

I mainly agree Marvin.
The whole idea when developing (and exposing) a neg is to get full shadow
detail without your highlights blocking up on you. Without your highlights
and high densities getting too dense.

You can always go for 4, 4.5 or 5 contrast papers or filters if you really
want to go for the gusto your image on your print is not going to be hurting
for contrast.
I don't go for a contrasty neg. I go for a rich neg.


But I sure don't believe in "pulling".
ARE YOU YOU EXPOSING MORE NOW, BUT DEVELOPING IT LESS?



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





In reply to: Message from marvbej at earthlink.net (Robert Marvin) ([Leica] Best 400 iso Film for Contrast?)