Semi-stupid question

[Kenj8246]

Ok, I'm still a relative noob. I read a lot about 'dense negatives' and would like to hear in 25 words or less--and plain english--what determines 'dense negatives'. I'm feeling my way along and this comes up a lot in discussions of image processing.

Thanks.

Kenny

[BobYIL]

Majority of the negative is black & dark gray, low transparency to print or scan, mid gray shadows rather than light, highlights plain black.

(24 words. )

[Kenj8246]

Thanks a lot. Much is written but a lot is hard to understand.

Oh and by the way, that's 23 words not counting the ampersand. Very succinct.

[jsrockit]

Dense Negatives = Overexposed Negatives (or Overdeveloped perhaps).

[Lauffray]

John, I love your new avatar

[Lauffray]

Is a dense negative a desirable thing to have ? Most of my negative are actually the opposite, I suppose that would be the definition of a thin negative ?

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Dense Negatives = Overexposed Negatives (or Overdeveloped perhaps).

Not necessarily. To me it implies the right exposure and the right development to yield a negative with good shadow details, true blacks, detailed highlights, and sufficiently dense that it needs a decent length of exposure under my particular enlarger (so that I have enough time for dodging and burning). I'm making my negs a lot denser now than I was several years ago, without over exposure or over-development as tested by making proper contact proof sheets.

[Sparrow]

More light = darker negative = more detail ... harder to print, easier to scan (on mine anyway) ... twelve words

[Pherdinand]

denser=higher weight for the same volume = more silver content
(physicist talkin')

[zauhar]

The last two messages from Chris and Stewart are contradictory - Are darker negatives easier or harder to print?

I spent a long time trying to print a very "thin" negative (lightly exposed) with an image that scanned well and I liked very much. After much experimentation with filter selection, exposure, and a little dodging, I got a print that was sort of acceptable, but not what I was after. I spent HOURS on it.

For the RFF postcard project, I selected a stand-developed negative that is very dark and contrasty. Prints nicely, didn't have to fiddle too much.

However, I had some REALLY dark negatives (stage shots, and I pushed the film a little too much). They pretty much look like sh-t when scanned or printed.

SO, based on my on-going struggles, I lean towards Chris's wisdom, but as common sense would indicate if the negative is too overexposed or overdeveloped, there is really nothing to work with, likewise at the other extreme.

Much more than 24 words, so sue me. ;-)

Randy

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by zauhar

The last two messages from Chris and Stewart are contradictory - Are darker negatives easier or harder to print?

Are 25 words or less a desirable thing to have? For all answers? For all questions? For a poem? For dialogs in movie scripts? For nuance?

[Kenj8246]

Thanks for all the answers and commentary. I think I have a better understanding now....maybe. I don't do any printing...yet. I have found that some of my 'thin' negatives which cause me to say uh-oh when I look at them do seem to scan better.