Topic: A Question of Contrast?

[Nigel]

Yesterday I developed a 120 roll of Tri-X that I'd shot in my Agfa Isolette. It's the first time I'd used the Isolette, although I've had it for ages. All the shots are very low contrast and I'm wondering, don't laugh if this is a stupid question, whether a lens by some aspect of design can be low contrast?

The film was developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 13 mins. Now I know this isn't the most contrasty of developer combinations, but it is what I always use. I've used a couple of rolls of Neopan 1600 recently and really enjoyed the contrast it's given me. I don't really want to be using iso 1600 film all the time so maybe I should be thinking about changing my developer? I read that by using the Rodinal at a lower dilution, say 1+25, I should get higher contrast.

Searching back through the forum I read a lot of positives about Aculux, which I'm sure is what I used to use when I developed film at school, a long time ago. Can does anyone have any info on it's relative contrast? I'm really looking for a one shot liquid developer like the Rodinal. Cheap and convenient, it's a good combination.

This has turned into a rather rambling post, but normally I have so little time to think and research such things it's great having a few days over the holiday to really focus (all puns intended) to think about my photography.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I hope your all enjoying any time off you have.

Nigel

[Late Developer]

Hi Nigel.

Lenses on older cameras (pre-1960's at a guess) tend to be either uncoated or single coat. This causes lower contrast compared to modern, multi-coated lenses. They can also be more prone to "ghosting" and "flare".

I have a Voigtlander Perkeo I which has a very sharp but lower contrast lens to those on my more modern Canon / Nikon gear. Even older non T* Zeiss / Hasselblad lenses can have lower contrast which, if you like the effect, can help avoid burned out highlights and blocked shadows.

You may be able to get UV / Daylight filters to fit your lens and that will increase contrast slightly.

I'm completely out of touch with what developing chemicals to use to increase contrast as I haven't had a darkroom in years. However, if you use Photoshop, it is very easy to create a layer for brightness / contrast and / or "curves" which will help you get the contrast where you want it to be.

If you print traditionally, using a higher contrast paper is another option as that can compensate for a soft contrast negative.

Hope this helps.

Paul.

[LT]

Nigel - if you want greater contrast for any of your films, either:

1.  extend development time;

2.  use warmer developer (not too warm though or the emulsion will become too soft - try a max of 24 degrees); or

3.  Use a higher concentration.

if you are happy with rodinal, why change? using one of the above methods will stretch the lighter areas of your film whilst having less effect on the darker tones.  

I'd try extending development by about 20% and see what happens.  

[Andrea.]

The great thing about low-contrast lens' is that if you are really clever - and I'm not - you could end up with images like Mr Ravilious who famously used old - non-coated low contrasty Leica lens'.
http://www.jamesravilious.com/

[Pete_R]

Hi Nigel,

I use Aculux and am very happy with it but I only ever use XP2 so can't comment on it's results with other films.

As to your recent experience. Have you deved Tri-X in Rodinal before and been happy with it or is this the first time. If it's worked OK before then try comparing the edge numbers with a previous one. If they are a bit thin in comparison then something went wrong in the development. If they look the same (in other words, if it's just the image that is low contrast and not the edge numbers) then it could be the camera/lens.

If this is the first time you used this combination then I'd suggest using a combination you're familiar with in the camera and compare the results before moving on to something different.

[Photo_Utopia]

The Isolette is an excellent camera, it was normally fitted with with either a 3 element (agnar/apotar) or 4 element (Solinar) all are very good, the solinar is a belter of a lens.

As to your problems are you sure you didn't underexpose? Your development time is ballpark OK and as a user of a 1930's Zeiss folder I'd never worry about lens contrast.

In order to keep the variables down I would shoot another film paying attention to metering and then give say 20% more development as suggested above.

Another thing that can come into play is agitation, Rodinal is very good with low agitation development in order to tame contrasty subjects-not normally a problem in the UK in winter.

My advice shoot another roll and give a longer development time, with normal agitation. I'm thinking underexposure may be your problem (I can't know without seeing the negs) longer development time will give more contrast with slight under-exposure.
Good luck!
Mark

[hookstrapped]

I develop 120 Tri-X 400 just as you did and get fine contrasty results, so I'd say it's not the developer / time / concentration.

[LT]

I develop 120 Tri-X 400 just as you did and get fine contrasty results, so I'd say it's not the developer / time / concentration.

It's likely to be a fungussy lens, or poor lighting, but if low contrast is a continuing feature when using this camera, then Nigel can boost his contrast by altering those factors.

[Nigel]

Thanks everyone for such comprehensive answers.

Covering a couple of the points raised; I use Tri-X and Rodinal all the time and I do generally find it a little lacking in contrast (for my taste anyway, we're all striving for different results). However this film was certainly a lot less contrasty than usual. Maybe it was under exposed, also it has been very grey here (south-east uk) for, what seems like, weeks.

Wanting to change as few of the variables as possible, and as I can't control the weather, I think I'll shoot another roll and give it a couple more minutes development. The massive dev chart says 13mins, which is what I've been using. I just checked the Rodinal leaflet and it says 14mins, maybe I'll try 15 and see what happens.

Thanks for the benefit of your collective knowledge.

[Photo_Utopia]

Nigel
That massive dev chart time is for the previous version of Tri-x 15min would be a better bet. Contrast (or lack of it) isn't a function of Rodinal use per se, you can change development time to get any contrast you wish with most common developers, indeed you can also change it with agitation and exposure as well as development time.
Commonly lower ISO films have slightly higher contrast than faster ones, this is what makes B&W hard to master as there are so many variables.

If I look out of my window today I see a very flat low contrast world, in those cases if I need to open out the range of a scene I might under-expose and overdevelop, in high contrast scenes the opposite is true...
Mark

[LT]

Nigel - dont forget that any time given is always subject to a multitude of variables. Your agitation techniique will vary from others, your thermometer might not be calibrated to the same as others, your measurement jugs/beakers might be slightly different to others, your water quality will be different to others etc etc.

So take any time with a pinch of salt (not literally ) - treat it as a guide and work out what what works best for you.  but the rule of thumb is to increase developer activity (time/temp/dilution) to increase contrast.

Bear in mind that if you are only scanning negs, excessive contrast is not as much a problem as if you are printing traditionally - even then it's not too much to deal with.  I;d rather work with contrasty negs than really flat ones.

good luck and let us know how you get on.

[Nigel]

Thanks guys, I'l report back ....