Low contrast film + developer combination

[totò618]

Hello,

what do you think is the best film + developer combination to achieve a low contrast negative rich in midtones?

For 120 and 4x5 film especially. Keep in mind I won't be scanning the negatives but printing in the darkroom.

I attached an 8x10 photograph by Joshua Lutz.

Thank you.

 

[koraks]

Welcome aboard - or at least, welcome to active posting here, since you apparently already registered this account nearly 13 years ago!

I'd say that most films can be coaxed into producing low contrast. It's a matter of giving sufficient exposure and cutting back development.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome from myself as well.
Are you sure that "low contrast" is what you are seeking? I ask, because looking at the example you posted, I would describe that as exhibiting normal contrast along with subtle tonal gradations.

 

[George Collier]

My long time favorite for long tonal range is Ilford FP-4. Find your own best time - and remember, agitation affects contrast noticeably.

With sheet film, it's easy to try different times and exposure speeds.

 

[Paul Howell]

What films do have access to, same with developers, I could recommend a combo that is not sold in part of the world.

In general for a negative rich in midtons I would recommend learning Beyond the Zone System developed by Phil Davis. Although I use the Zone System of all the work I've seen for your proposes BTZS might be the ticket.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

As said, contrast is a function of exposure+development.

As a general rule of thumb, exposing a film at a lower EI than its ISO box speed, and in turn under developing, will tend to reduce contrast. Exposing at a higher EI than box speed and then extending development tends to increase contrast.

It's often said that more active developers give more contrast, and less active ones give less contrast. Some of it is individual developer(and chemistry) specific, but develop most any film in a print developer like Dektol and you'll find you're constantly fighting contrast. Some developers are designed for low contrast-D96 is a good example here, as are some special purpose developers designed to pull continuous tones out of high contrast technical films(Technidol is a good example here).

One of the big things that you'll hear talked about is the concept of "local exhaustion"-basically only developer that is in contact with the film actually takes part in developing. When developer is added to the tank and allowed to stand, development slows down or will even stop at areas of high density while it will continue working at areas of lower density. Local exhaustion decreases contrast. There are a couple of factors at play in it, though. One is developer dilution-basically a more dilute solution will exhaust faster than a more concentrated one. I almost always use D76 1:1, for example, because it gives noticeably lower contrast than straight D76. Someone mentioned agitation above, though-agitation brings "fresh" developer into contact with the film and basically "resets" this effect. Some people will use even use low concentrations of fairly active developers(like Rodinal 1:100) with minimal to no agitation(semi-stand or stand) to maximize this effect-I've done it and it does give fairly low contrast negatives. I don't see temperature mentioned a lot in these discussions, but my own intuition backed by some experience is that higher temperatures should increase contrast, all else being equal. Higher temperatures bring more Brownian motion, which will tend to lessen the effects of local exhaustion to some degree. Realistically I don't see a ton of difference going from say 20ºC to 22º, but I expect if you went up to say 30ºC this would start to become really significant.

To keep things simple, I'd pick one film to start with-FP4+ mentioned above is as good as any-or some other conventional grain film. If Plus-X were still around I'd suggest it, especailly since I always found it fairly low contrast. Pick one developer also to play with to start. I like D76 to keep it simple, but the data sheet does say that regardless of the dilution used, you should have a minimum of 8 oz. of stock D76 per roll of film(or 4 sheets of 4x5). In 35mm, if I'm using D76 1:1, I will use a tank designed to hold twice the number of rolls as what I'm actually developing(i.e. 1 roll gets a 16 oz. tank, 2 rolls get a 32 oz tank) with empty reels to keep them from moving around too much. A conventional stainless tank takes 16 oz. to cover a single roll of 120, so D76 diluted 1:1 is perfect for 120. HC-110 also could have a lot of potential for you as it can be used over a wide range of dilutions, and it stays reasonably linear over a lot of them(i.e. the unnoficial Dilution H, which is half of Dilution B, takes 2x the time specified for Dilution B). Experiment with different EIs and developing times with your chosen developer and dilution. The Massive Development Chart can give you a starting point, as just about every film and developer combination you can imagine is there somewhere.

 

[MattKing]

The example you shared appears to be a relatively "normal" sort of subject in relatively "normal" sorts of lighting conditions.
There are some film and developer combinations that have the capability of dealing with unusually contrasty subjects in unusually contrasty lighting conditions, but my sense is that that is not what you are seeking.

 

[pentaxuser]

Are you sure that "low contrast" is what you are seeking? I ask, because looking at the example you posted, I would describe that as exhibiting normal contrast along with subtle tonal gradations.

For what it is worth to the OP that's my verdict as well

pentaxuser

 

[Alex Benjamin]

For what it is worth to the OP that's my verdict as well

pentaxuser

Makes three of us.

If you want low contrast and full tonal gradation, my advice would be to develop normally and work on reaching the contrast level you want in the darkroom.

I'd just avoid low ISO films. HP5+ at 200 ISO in D-23 (not regarded as a high contrast developer) should work out fine.

 

[xkaes]

Check out Richard Henry's book, "Controls in Black & White Photography". He explains how you create your own tests to meet your own needs & film & equipment & taste, etc. etc.

 

[totò618]

Welcome aboard - or at least, welcome to active posting here, since you apparently already registered this account nearly 13 years ago!

I'd say that most films can be coaxed into producing low contrast. It's a matter of giving sufficient exposure and cutting back development.

haha yes it took me a while, only 13 years! thank you. and thanks to the other people that are replying

 

[totò618]

Welcome from myself as well.
Are you sure that "low contrast" is what you are seeking? I ask, because looking at the example you posted, I would describe that as exhibiting normal contrast along with subtle tonal gradations.

Reading also from the other comments maybe it's just me, but for me these images look rather flat, lots of midtones, not reaching a black, very grey highlights.
I'm aware that with developing "normal" you can achieve these results, I guess my question was more about getting "premium" results. If a film + dev combination helped in midtones richness of tonalities. I've taken a really long pause from photography and I was used to shoot 35mm tri-x to 1600 in xtol all the time. Very different. So I'm coming back to photography with different intentions and I was curious to see where to start again.

 

[koraks]

Reading also from the other comments maybe it's just me, but for me these images look rather flat, lots of midtones, not reaching a black, very grey highlights.

I agree that the images look flat. They look like this kind of curve:

Basically just very flat.

"premium" results

What do you understand to be 'premium'? I don't see much in the examples you posted that seems particularly special or 'premium'. Just very, very flat. If that's what you're after, it's easy enough to accomplish. Expose normally or overexpose slightly, then cut back development a little, and most importantly: in printing (or digital editing), print at low contrast and print down the highlights so that everything gets squashed into the midtone region of the print.

This really has more to do with printing or digital post processing than with film choice. (The example I posted was actually a color shot on Kodak Ektar, which I used only because I happened to have it open in Gimp...)

 

[dpurdy]

Back in the day when people used Tech Pan film, which could get very contrasty if you developed it normal, people would use a developer called "POTA" which was just phenidone and sodium sulfite. It can be used to reduce very high contrast.

 

[Paul Howell]

Reading also from the other comments maybe it's just me, but for me these images look rather flat, lots of midtones, not reaching a black, very grey highlights.
I'm aware that with developing "normal" you can achieve these results, I guess my question was more about getting "premium" results. If a film + dev combination helped in midtones richness of tonalities. I've taken a really long pause from photography and I was used to shoot 35mm tri-x to 1600 in xtol all the time. Very different. So I'm coming back to photography with different intentions and I was curious to see where to start again.

I go back to a system, either the Zone or Beyond The Zone, either will give you control over the tones you are looking for. The Zone uses AAs concept of Visualizations to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, testing is done to figure out a film and developers combo E.I for ISO. In BTZS Phil David tests film, developer, paper and paper developer that is matched to scenes brightness range by a computer program, an app on a smart phone that determines exposure. Fred Newman who has taught at a local community college, I've seen impressive work. He has tutorials and will test film and developer combos, for a fee. If you have densitometer you can test your own film. BTZS is not for faint of heart, it is match centric.

Here is link to the View Camera Store.

Collections

viewcamerastore

viewcamerastore.com

 

[totò618]

I agree that the images look flat. They look like this kind of curve:

View attachment 386006
Basically just very flat.



What do you understand to be 'premium'? I don't see much in the examples you posted that seems particularly special or 'premium'. Just very, very flat. If that's what you're after, it's easy enough to accomplish. Expose normally or overexpose slightly, then cut back development a little, and most importantly: in printing (or digital editing), print at low contrast and print down the highlights so that everything gets squashed into the midtone region of the print.

This really has more to do with printing or digital post processing than with film choice. (The example I posted was actually a color shot on Kodak Ektar, which I used only because I happened to have it open in Gimp...)

for premium I just mean the most optimal choice of film+dev for this sort of negative, plenty of detail in shadows and highlights and wide tonal range of midtones. Imo You can make most negative look flat but I'm looking for the combination of film + dev that gives the greatest tonal range. I think you're getting too hang up on the examples, maybe I would have been better of without them

 

[koraks]

the greatest tonal range

Given that you're looking for essentially a rather flat rendition of the scene, what you want is the opposite of the 'greatest tonal range'.

I'm picking on the examples and on your wording because the underlying thinking appears to be imprecise and confused, and that makes it impossible to answer your question. I suspect that the look you're after is much more about the kind of scene and the quality of the light on that scene, and choices w.r.t. what film to use should be way down at the bottom of the list of priorities. It's a bit like asking "which type of cement should I use to build a house that blends into its environment and has beautifully large windows" - it's not about the cement, it's about the architecture. I think it's similar with the question you're asking here. It's not about the film.

Mind you, there are differences between films that are potentially relevant to you - perhaps something along the lines of spectral response, or linearity. However, I feel we can only get to these if you become more specific about what you're looking for. Until and unless you're more specific, I rest with the general observation that pretty much any film will do, provided you don't underexpose it, don't overdevelop it and you print it to give the flat look you're after.

As to the printing: there's a simple experiment you could do. Take any regular negative that provides a print with a full tonal scale (deep black to pure white) at let's say grade 2 or grade 3. Now print that same negative at grade 1 or even grade 0, and expose the print so that the black point remains more or less the same. You'll end up with a print that ranges from pure black to grey highlights, with only very bright specular highlights ending up as nearly or entirely pure white. Evaluate that print and try to identify in what ways (if any) it doesn't look like what you're after. Then, using those specific criteria, improve your approach.

 

[oxcanary]

Back in the day when people used Tech Pan film, which could get very contrasty if you developed it normal, people would use a developer called "POTA" which was just phenidone and sodium sulfite. It can be used to reduce very high contrast.

Or in very dilute Rodinal 1+300 for 12 minutes

 

[Alex Benjamin]

for premium I just mean the most optimal choice of film+dev for this sort of negative, plenty of detail in shadows and highlights and wide tonal range of midtones. Imo You can make most negative look flat but I'm looking for the combination of film + dev that gives the greatest tonal range.

I don't think you can have it both ways. What you're describing is a pretty straightforward curve, with short toe and little shoulder. Rating HP5+ at 200, for example, would certainly open up your shadows. After that, it's finding a developer that wouldn't either blow up your highlights or flatten them (I'm partial to D-23).

This would give you a high tonal range, but also normal contrast. After that, the low contrast/full midtones look you want would have to be worked out in the darkroom, by experimenting with different papers, contrast filters and paper developers (some, like Ansco 120, are low contrast).

Point is (and I'm sure you already know it), you won't fully achieve the look you want just with the negative.

That said, there are some low-contrast film-developer combos, but I can't garantee they will give you the mid-tone ranges you want. High-dilution Rodinal, as someone mentioned, is an option. In fact, Agfa published the contrast index for Rodinal at 1:100 for different film combinations. With 0.65 considered normal contrast, some go as low as 0.45. For example, HP5+ rated ISO 100, 15 minutes development in 1+100.

 

[totò618]

I don't think you can have it both ways. What you're describing is a pretty straightforward curve, with short toe and little shoulder. Rating HP5+ at 200, for example, would certainly open up your shadows. After that, it's finding a developer that wouldn't either blow up your highlights or flatten them (I'm partial to D-23).

This would give you a high tonal range, but also normal contrast. After that, the low contrast/full midtones look you want would have to be worked out in the darkroom, by experimenting with different papers, contrast filters and paper developers (some, like Ansco 120, are low contrast).

Point is (and I'm sure you already know it), you won't fully achieve the look you want just with the negative.

That said, there are some low-contrast film-developer combos, but I can't garantee they will give you the mid-tone ranges you want. High-dilution Rodinal, as someone mentioned, is an option. In fact, Agfa published the contrast index for Rodinal at 1:100 for different film combinations. With 0.65 considered normal contrast, some go as low as 0.45. For example, HP5+ rated ISO 100, 15 minutes development in 1+100.

View attachment 386176

nice thanks! yes of course printing will play a huge role as well. I remember back in the day I used to use a two baths combination of dektol / selectol which I used to really enjoy to play with tonalities.

 

[totò618]

My long time favorite for long tonal range is Ilford FP-4. Find your own best time - and remember, agitation affects contrast noticeably.

With sheet film, it's easy to try different times and exposure speeds.

nice thanks. which developer do you use with it?

 

[totò618]

As said, contrast is a function of exposure+development.

As a general rule of thumb, exposing a film at a lower EI than its ISO box speed, and in turn under developing, will tend to reduce contrast. Exposing at a higher EI than box speed and then extending development tends to increase contrast.

It's often said that more active developers give more contrast, and less active ones give less contrast. Some of it is individual developer(and chemistry) specific, but develop most any film in a print developer like Dektol and you'll find you're constantly fighting contrast. Some developers are designed for low contrast-D96 is a good example here, as are some special purpose developers designed to pull continuous tones out of high contrast technical films(Technidol is a good example here).

One of the big things that you'll hear talked about is the concept of "local exhaustion"-basically only developer that is in contact with the film actually takes part in developing. When developer is added to the tank and allowed to stand, development slows down or will even stop at areas of high density while it will continue working at areas of lower density. Local exhaustion decreases contrast. There are a couple of factors at play in it, though. One is developer dilution-basically a more dilute solution will exhaust faster than a more concentrated one. I almost always use D76 1:1, for example, because it gives noticeably lower contrast than straight D76. Someone mentioned agitation above, though-agitation brings "fresh" developer into contact with the film and basically "resets" this effect. Some people will use even use low concentrations of fairly active developers(like Rodinal 1:100) with minimal to no agitation(semi-stand or stand) to maximize this effect-I've done it and it does give fairly low contrast negatives. I don't see temperature mentioned a lot in these discussions, but my own intuition backed by some experience is that higher temperatures should increase contrast, all else being equal. Higher temperatures bring more Brownian motion, which will tend to lessen the effects of local exhaustion to some degree. Realistically I don't see a ton of difference going from say 20ºC to 22º, but I expect if you went up to say 30ºC this would start to become really significant.

To keep things simple, I'd pick one film to start with-FP4+ mentioned above is as good as any-or some other conventional grain film. If Plus-X were still around I'd suggest it, especailly since I always found it fairly low contrast. Pick one developer also to play with to start. I like D76 to keep it simple, but the data sheet does say that regardless of the dilution used, you should have a minimum of 8 oz. of stock D76 per roll of film(or 4 sheets of 4x5). In 35mm, if I'm using D76 1:1, I will use a tank designed to hold twice the number of rolls as what I'm actually developing(i.e. 1 roll gets a 16 oz. tank, 2 rolls get a 32 oz tank) with empty reels to keep them from moving around too much. A conventional stainless tank takes 16 oz. to cover a single roll of 120, so D76 diluted 1:1 is perfect for 120. HC-110 also could have a lot of potential for you as it can be used over a wide range of dilutions, and it stays reasonably linear over a lot of them(i.e. the unnoficial Dilution H, which is half of Dilution B, takes 2x the time specified for Dilution B). Experiment with different EIs and developing times with your chosen developer and dilution. The Massive Development Chart can give you a starting point, as just about every film and developer combination you can imagine is there somewhere.

great info thank you!

 

[totò618]

What films do have access to, same with developers, I could recommend a combo that is not sold in part of the world.

I'm in Europe so I would assume I have access to most films + developers

 

[Paul Howell]

Well if you lived in U.S I would recommend Tmax 100 and Phil Davis developer for Tmax with a range of 7 to 10 stops. It is sold in the U.S. Although designed for the BTZS I have used it with 35mm film. Otherwise PF 4 and D 23.

DI-13 Film Developer

Developer DI-13 Film Photography Chemicals

stores.photoformulary.com

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The photographers that I've known in my life that made images the way you seem to want always overexposed the film then gently developed it. Rate Tri-X for example at 200 or even 100 then only develop it until you get the highlights that you are looking for. Probably 30ish percent less than recommended IIRC. That will give you a negative that has detail everywhere. One of my friends even went as far as water bath development with his LF negs which is a pretty extreme way of doing it. Anyway, that is how you do it. Your results will depend a lot on the light of course.

Developer choice isn't as critical as you may think it is. I'd recommend a solvent developer. Even D-76 will be fine.

Off the top of my head, Henry Wessel is probably the best example I can think of if you are looking to print your negs in the darkroom. Mark Steinmetz is another. The photographer you referenced in your OP looks to me like he scans his negs but I could be wrong about that.