A recent discussion on pdn left me trying to reduce the density of my typically very dense negatives in effort to achieve better image quality. I expose film as carefully as I can in accordance with Zone principles; but I use PMK pyro as my developer, and I have grown to love the look of a dense pyro neg so much that the neg itself became a finished product for me--at, I believe, the expense of my prints; occasionally, at more expense the greater the density. So I have started to reduce my development times fairly dramatically to see what happens.(posted 9021 days ago)So far, I have been relying on low-Zone density to determine my new times, i.e., assuming the shortest time which brings up the lows is sufficient time, indeed is probably the "ideal" time. But I think I have gone a little to far in the other direction, and have noticed a loss of separation in some of my negatives in the mid and high values, which must be countered with quite excessive contrast at the printing stage (I used to print typically at 50-75cc's of magenta, now I am typically at 100cc's or more). The difference, though, is that I have detail in the highs of a greater quality than with my dense negs, just no separation.
I don't use a densitometer. But I am starting to think I should buy one, for the following reason: Question:
Should I be trying to match my original exposures with a densitometer at the development stage? By which I mean measuring the highlights and making sure particular Zones register in the same place, and thus come up with my new times based on that?
I hope I have asked this clearly...
ps I use roll film, 120 typically, and so I don't have the luxury of developing each frame perfectly according to the original luminance (can't afford another Pentax 67 right now either for plus/minus dev't). I think I might be asking to achieve the impossible.
Thanks all. shawn