Its getting a bit quiet around here, and I felt a need to ramble. Heres something to toss around in intelligent discussion, or just flame me till I burn! (hopefully the formatting of this won't get too fouled up)

A scene contains a range of brightness levels, zones, or whatever you want to call them. You can expose such that some level of shadow detail is recorded on the film, and you can develop such that the highlights end up at some reasonable density.

Since there arent any gaps in the log response curve for the film, we can assume the negative contains a continuous range of densities from base+fog, to the highlights.

Now we print the thing. We choose a paper grade that matches the density range of the negative, and correctly expose and process it. If weve done our job correctly, the print will now have a continuous range of tones from black to white. Most papers are similar in their minimum and maximum densities, and every tone is present, since the paper hasnt any gaps in its log response curve either.

I contend that:

1) Almost any film, developer, and paper, will respond as described above.

2) Full tonal range is an almost meaningless term, and any print that makes it from shadow to highlight has achieved it.

3) There are only four major things that affect the appearance of the print: a. the negative exposure that sets the amount of shadow detail. b. the negative development that sets the highlight density. c. the mapping of tones due to the shape of the negative and paper curves. d. the color of the print (warm, cold, toned, etc).

So:

1) The lighting of the original scene (and obviously the scene itself) is the most important factor in achieving what people perceive as a full tonal range. The print may go from dense black to base white, but without an abundance of graduated light mid tones, it will not be perceived as having full tonal range. (Look at an Ansel Adams print- there are LOTS of light mid tones.) Even if thats not the effect youre after, the original tonal values can only be warped so far. Any effort to correct lighting ratios, add fill in, or enhance depth and texture will be repaid a hundred fold when its time to make the print. Minor White emphasized previsualization for this very reason (IMHO).

2) Almost ANY materials in competent hands can produce acceptable results, and an understanding of how different materials map tones may result in exceptional results. The beginner should standardize on one or two films and a single developer until basic technique is mastered. Only when basic technique is mastered, should one start exploring alternative materials (pyro, et al).

3) We put far too much effort into the process when its too late- see point #1 again!

Opinions?

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), October 07, 1999

Answers

wasn't it adams or sexton who said,"once you have achieved a full range from black to white you are ready to begin because you have just made a graduated test print"! In other words, its not how technically correct the range may be for the print but how well the print conveys intent of the photographer regardless of how many tones are there.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 07, 1999.

I have to agree. I have seen prints that were only black and white, no greys at all, and the were great. I think there is to much, "technically perfect" thinking. Shoot and print for what you want to say, not what you think you should say. Artists who have moved outside of the "norm" have been often labled "radical" but they are also seen as the leaders of some new form. We shouldn't always be conforming to some standards but rather should be expressing our individual tastes and emotions. Does it really matter if there is a "full range of tones"?

-- Francis (kellf@dfo-mpo.gc.ca), October 07, 1999.

Sometimes

It should matter that there is a full range of tones if you are trying to achieve a full range of tones in a print, shouldn't it? Otherwise you've made a mistake and you need to try again?

-- Huw (crosby@magna.com.au), October 07, 1999.

There must be more to it than that. The shape of the curve (film and paper) determines the final apperance. Have a look at any Bret Weston print. They're darn near Kodalith.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 07, 1999.

I don't think you can ever put too much into the process. Unfortunately very high contrast prints and very muddy prints are the domain of the amatuer...i tutor a few hobbyist friends and photo-students and they love to cover their mistakes by saying " I prefer high-contrast images they have much more impact" but then look at my prints and say..."how do you get them so silvery looking?" Once they've learned to do the simplest things like, throwing away their dial thermometer and using a timer and taking good notes, well, they stop loving their mistakes and begin to manipulate contrast and tonality to their own particular satisfaction.

Sure Adams said that.... but how many of his prints were too contrasty or too flat? I agree that ultimately it's a preference for the photog and only the photog and that with the same materials we are just "splitting hairs" but amatuers don't necessarily know exactly what consistency means and until they do they should be encouraged to understand all those terms like, response curves, heel and toe(or shoulder), gamma, base, fog, dmax, dmin. My experience has been that you can switch developers on every roll with 100 different emulsions but you had better take notes. So in effect I agree with Conrad...but don't want newbies to think they can be consistent without understanding the basics and call it art. All those silly posterizations and gum-prints and pinholes and the endless years in the dark really does help.

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

Umm, well, I essentially agree with the conclusions (especially about the lighting), and roughly agree with the contentions, except for one very minor but very important point. The negative does NOT actually contain a continuous range of densities from base+fog, to the highlights. We often assume they do, but B&W films (like Tri-X, Delta 400, whatever) actually record in binary (yes, they are digital). Each picture element (a grain, but dare I call it a 'pixel'?) is either on or off. A histogram plot (measured at a sufficiently fine scale) would show everything as either black or white, but with no greys at all. The greyness is actually formed by an integration of the appropriate proportion of white with black. If the grains are suficiently small (fine-grained film, or large formats), we don't notice this effect. If we enlarge, say, Delta 3200 by a factor of 20, the binary effect is very obvious.

The situation is more complex with chromogenic films, like XP2. Although here again each grain is either on or off, an 'on' grain is not black. It is transluscent, and the overlapping transluscent grains do form real greys.

Has that nicely muddied the waters?

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 07, 1999.

trib, why throw away the dial thermometer?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), October 07, 1999.

don't if you've checked it up against a real thermometer and it's accurate. I checked a friend's dial style up against my kodak glass thermometer and it was nearly 10 degs too hot. They work great for trix and plusx heeeeheeeee, if you don't mind inconsistent results.

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

Thanks all! Gee, much more agreement than I would have expected. Alan, you're even more of a nitpicker than I am! Absolutely right, though. I had to drive around a bit today, and spent much of the time looking at lighting on various things. If I look at photos I've taken that failed (yes, the majority of 'em), they failed due to lighting. Lit properly, the most mundane things become interesting. Fortunately, some subjects are interesting enough, powerful enough, or otherwise engaging enough, to make good photos even with bad lighting. My new found challange is to become more sensitive to lighting conditons, and either change what can be changed, or come back when conditions are at their best.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), October 07, 1999.

This is actually an interesting thread, thanks Conrad. A B&W photograph does not have to have "a full 9 or 10 zones to be full toned" what about high and low key images. Are we some how wasting silver if we don't extract a whole range of intermediate grey tones ... no. An image should be represented correctly by the number of zones that are in the scene. The intermediate greys may be there but are compressed to the point where they are not very prominent. If all zones are given equal weight in a scene that visually is not equally weighted then the image can often turn out to be very "flat". I love an image that has a full range of tones but the range of tone [be it 5 or 10] has to convey the scene not a scientific representation of a grey scale. Consistant darkroom technique is just as important as a good thermometer. Change your agitation only slightly and you can greatly alter the highlight or shadow densities in a negative. When you find a method, your method no matter what it is and it is giving you the image quality that works for you stick with it until you understand everything you are doing, then if you need to change something you can change because you know why you are altering things. Not everyone uses the zone system, not everyone wants a "full" range of tones, that is the beauty of our art.

-- Steve Nicholls (gl1500@chariot.net.au), October 07, 1999.

Steve,

I know it sounds like I'm suggesting all prints should contain a full range, but what really made me write this were the many posts by people in search of "magic" developers that would somehow increase the tonal range of their prints. Certainly the print should utilize whatever range and key that are suited to your vision. Also, (after 30 years!) I've realized that the necessary tonal separation has to be present in the subject, either by reflectivity or by lighting ratio, or all the process manipulation in the world won't result in a great print. (again, to suit your vision of the subject). Another interesting thought- if you set up a portrait with 2:1 lighting, nice backdrop, hair light, etc., the standard yearbook sort of thing, then have 50 people come along with whatever equipment and film they happen to have (point & shoots included), I bet 49 of 'em will end up with a pretty good shot. The problems we have "out in the world" largely result from poor control over lighting.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), October 08, 1999.

My nitpicking above was an attempt to point out that tonal separation is intimately tied up with the grain patterns, which depend largely on the film and degree of enlargement.

But I certainly agree that lighting and reflectivity are much greater factors. I often find myself photographing with many other people, some of them using similar equipment and identical film to me. We usually have totally different results, because I have chosen to press the shutter when the lighting is right.

One great feature of photos on a computer is that we can play with the tonal separation. By tweaking a graph, we can see the effect of increasing contrast in the shadows and highlights at the expense of the midtones, or whatever. But this is no substitute for tweaking the lighting pre-exposure.

The darkroom work provides the icing on the cake, and poor processing can certainly break a picture, but there are severe limits on how much it can compensate for poor lighting.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 08, 1999.

trib;

My dial and my glass thermometer agree within 1/2 degree F!! Ah Ha!

-- Gene Crumpler, NC, USA (nikonguy@worldnet.tt.net), October 08, 1999.

that's good Gene,,,I had an old costar dial thermometer that was "spot-on" but it was stolen along with the contents of my darkroom bag and a body/two lenses during college....i miss it, it was much more durable than my glass therm....but now I'm eye-ballin' one of those new 100 dollar instant read-out digital ones...now if I could only find a used one! What brand is yours,,,,I heard tell once about a nikon built dial therm that was very accurate.

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.