I like film...(open thread)

[stray cat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Neil,

 

If you've underexposed the negative by two stops you should overdevelop by about 30% to compensate (15% per stop) - so, yeah, your 7 minutes sounds about right. You'll get a less muddy negative with extended contrast range.

[Doc Henry]

another landscape of storm as promised

 

 

Fuji Superia 100-Leica R4S-50 Summicron

Nikon Coolscan V

 

Before the storm arrives, the fisherman checks if the boats are tied

Danang beach

in the 1990's

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Best

Henry

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Hi Neil,

 

If you've underexposed the negative by two stops you should overdevelop by about 30% to compensate (15% per stop) - so, yeah, your 7 minutes sounds about right. You'll get a less muddy negative with extended contrast range.

 

Phil I will try that tonight, and post up in the morning. I need to get away from taking back up shots as they now cost USD$7 bucks a pop :(

Cheers pal

 

Neil

[Doc Henry]

Hi Neil,

 

If you've underexposed the negative by two stops you should overdevelop by about 30% to compensate (15% per stop) - so, yeah, your 7 minutes sounds about right. You'll get a less muddy negative with extended contrast range.

 

Phil I always follow the dev chart of the film manufacturer and in general , I also try to have

a good exposure when I take the photo (its why it's important to have good camera-lighmeter

and lens). But sometimes I admit it's not the case.

So if in example the negative is underexposed , yes you overdevelop , but you can also accentuate

the black parts of the photo but if it does not bother , why not ?

Henry

Edited June 5, 2017 by Doc Henry

[stray cat]

Hi again Neil,

 

Sorry to keep coming back to this, and believe me I'm no expert - but it seems to me:

 

The zone system is more complicated than selecting an area and exposing for it in the hope that it will be OK. You have to take into account the full contrast range of the scene. Once that has been established - say the contrast range on a dull day works out to be eight stops (metering the brightest highlights to the deepest shadows is eight stops difference) you can then visually and mentally "place" important parts of the picture on zones. Taking the middle zone as your reference - you "place" that on zone 5. As I understand things, this is where you'll aim to make your exposure. If you want the tree trunk to be "placed" on zone three you do so by working out, in advance, how you'll develop the neg. Chances are in this scene of the stump on the beach that the shadow on the stump may have only metered one stop difference from your zone 5. This tells you, as you want it specifically to sit on zone three in your envisaged negative, that you'll have to expand the contrast range by the only means you have at hand - which is to allow for longer than normal development of the negative. A general rule of thumb is to then overdevelop by 15% to kick up the contrast that extra stop.

 

The above example is predicated on a condition that you had metered everything individually. As I think you metered the shadow of the stump, then compensated minus two stops, and went with that as the overall exposure, you'll maybe have slightly overexposed the scene initially, then way underexposed in your compensation. Your negative turned out muddy because it was underexposed initially and then developed normally. I'd say giving it that extra 30% will make you a lot happier with it.

 

Anyway, this is all pretty confusing stuff and I think we'll all learn whatever happens when you develop the second neg you took of the scene. And if it takes your first shot to teach us all something about all Ansel's mumbo jumbo, that can only be a very good thing!

[stray cat]

Phil I will try that tonight, and post up in the morning. I need to get away from taking back up shots as they now cost USD$7 bucks a pop :(

Cheers pal

 

Neil

 

Well then we'll all learn an EXPENSIVE lesson too! Can't wait to see how it goes - good luck!

[stray cat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Phil I always follow the dev chart of the film manufacturer and in general , I also try to have

a good exposure when I take the photo (its why it's important to have good camera-lighmeter

and lens). But sometimes I admit it's not the case.

So if in example the negative is underexposed , yes you overdevelop , but you can also accentuate

the black parts of the photo but if it does not bother , why not ?

Henry

 

That's exactly it, Henry. The optimal situation for the broadest tonal palette is "correct" exposure and development. But sometimes we don't want correct - we want those delicious black tones that Ralph Gibson gets by (probably) overexposing AND overdeveloping in Rodinal. Or a whole host of other brilliant things that film allows us to play with - in effect, using chemistry creatively. When the vision is aligned with the output - that is when we've been successful, whether it's Ansel's vast tonal palette or Ralph's "soot and chalk" kind of extreme contrast.

 

Me, I just follow the massive developer chart and hope that everything kind of fits in there somewhere - mainly because I usually just can't wait to see the pictures I took! Plus, with 35mm, it usually takes me days or weeks to go through a film, and over that time conditions are usually quite varied.

[Doc Henry]

That's exactly it, Henry. The optimal situation for the broadest tonal palette is "correct" exposure and development. But sometimes we don't want correct - we want those delicious black tones that Ralph Gibson gets by (probably) overexposing AND overdeveloping in Rodinal. Or a whole host of other brilliant things that film allows us to play with - in effect, using chemistry creatively. When the vision is aligned with the output - that is when we've been successful, whether it's Ansel's vast tonal palette or Ralph's "soot and chalk" kind of extreme contrast.

 

Me, I just follow the massive developer chart and hope that everything kind of fits in there somewhere - mainly because I usually just can't wait to see the pictures I took! Plus, with 35mm, it usually takes me days or weeks to go through a film, and over that time conditions are usually quite varied.

 

Phil thank you .

Yes the possibility you have with film is great not like in digital.

 

For negative firstly , you can modify if you want the time development to get an artistic side of the picture.

 

Secondly for print it's the same notice, you can also modify the result and rendering of your picture . 

You can put filters on your enlarger (or your camera)  , to highlight some part of your picture (example clouds).

 

The result is something really superior to what you have in digital with your digit.camera and your inkjet

printer and in addition you have nice grain and natural grain please !

 

So > Advantage film !

Best

Henry

Edited June 5, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Hi again Neil,

 

Sorry to keep coming back to this, and believe me I'm no expert - but it seems to me:

 

The zone system is more complicated than selecting an area and exposing for it in the hope that it will be OK. You have to take into account the full contrast range of the scene. Once that has been established - say the contrast range on a dull day works out to be eight stops (metering the brightest highlights to the deepest shadows is eight stops difference) you can then visually and mentally "place" important parts of the picture on zones. Taking the middle zone as your reference - you "place" that on zone 5. As I understand things, this is where you'll aim to make your exposure. If you want the tree trunk to be "placed" on zone three you do so by working out, in advance, how you'll develop the neg. Chances are in this scene of the stump on the beach that the shadow on the stump may have only metered one stop difference from your zone 5. This tells you, as you want it specifically to sit on zone three in your envisaged negative, that you'll have to expand the contrast range by the only means you have at hand - which is to allow for longer than normal development of the negative. A general rule of thumb is to then overdevelop by 15% to kick up the contrast that extra stop.

 

The above example is predicated on a condition that you had metered everything individually. As I think you metered the shadow of the stump, then compensated minus two stops, and went with that as the overall exposure, you'll maybe have slightly overexposed the scene initially, then way underexposed in your compensation. Your negative turned out muddy because it was underexposed initially and then developed normally. I'd say giving it that extra 30% will make you a lot happier with it.

 

Anyway, this is all pretty confusing stuff and I think we'll all learn whatever happens when you develop the second neg you took of the scene. And if it takes your first shot to teach us all something about all Ansel's mumbo jumbo, that can only be a very good thing!

Phil

When I got my first film camera about a year ago it was a M6 followed quickly by the Hasselblad 503CW. The way I used to meter then was using L758DR I would get 5 spot reading, sky, shadow, and work my way around the sceen until I had 5. I would then hit the average button and go with that, and to be honest I used to get lovely exposures that way........... I think I will go back to doing that just to try and keep it simple and hopefully ghat way I will have better negs to work with.

Later

 

Neil

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Hi again Neil,

 

Sorry to keep coming back to this, and believe me I'm no expert - but it seems to me:

 

The zone system is more complicated than selecting an area and exposing for it in the hope that it will be OK. You have to take into account the full contrast range of the scene. Once that has been established - say the contrast range on a dull day works out to be eight stops (metering the brightest highlights to the deepest shadows is eight stops difference) you can then visually and mentally "place" important parts of the picture on zones. Taking the middle zone as your reference - you "place" that on zone 5. As I understand things, this is where you'll aim to make your exposure. If you want the tree trunk to be "placed" on zone three you do so by working out, in advance, how you'll develop the neg. Chances are in this scene of the stump on the beach that the shadow on the stump may have only metered one stop difference from your zone 5. This tells you, as you want it specifically to sit on zone three in your envisaged negative, that you'll have to expand the contrast range by the only means you have at hand - which is to allow for longer than normal development of the negative. A general rule of thumb is to then overdevelop by 15% to kick up the contrast that extra stop.

 

The above example is predicated on a condition that you had metered everything individually. As I think you metered the shadow of the stump, then compensated minus two stops, and went with that as the overall exposure, you'll maybe have slightly overexposed the scene initially, then way underexposed in your compensation. Your negative turned out muddy because it was underexposed initially and then developed normally. I'd say giving it that extra 30% will make you a lot happier with it.

 

Anyway, this is all pretty confusing stuff and I think we'll all learn whatever happens when you develop the second neg you took of the scene. And if it takes your first shot to teach us all something about all Ansel's mumbo jumbo, that can only be a very good thing!

Mate I'm loving the feedback and help. Really much appreciated

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Did I screw up when Micheal suggested I use 0 and 5 filters and I changed to 2 and 4????

My thinking was to try and get a little more detail with the 2 and not so much contrast using 4

Thanks

 

Neil

[Wayne]

Barnyard abstract 2.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

CL, 40 Summicron C, Arista 200

 

 

[Doc Henry]

Phil and Neil, I have this lighmeter for print to have the grade of the paper

(hard,medium or soft) , according to the negative overexposed or underexposed

with much contrast or not or brighter ....There is a moving part of the measuring

cell not visible on the photo, that I move under the enlarger in the white and black parts
of the negative, after the apparatus gives me the exact measurement with a compromise

and also the grade of paper.

It also works as timer for dev time in seconds and minutes.

The second I often use when I enlarge in 50x60 cms (or less 30x40)  it's the

Scoponet (a magnifier) you see in background to verify the sharpness of the print

(grains must  be sharp) before I enlarge.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M8-35 LA

 

For Neil , I have the inactic lamp but in green

Best

Henry

Edited June 5, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Barnyard abstract 2.

 

image92920-2.JPG

 

CL, 40 Summicron C, Arista 200

Wayne "magnifique" color The green of grass is really superb.

Ha Arista of Fuji

Thank you for posting

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

You know I have "critical" spirit,also in my job 

 

 

I show you here two pictures taken at the same time (similar shadows on the roof).

.

One of the picture is in digital  (M8-50 Lux Asph)  and one is in film (M7-35 Lux Asph)

Look at the blue sky, stone color ,rose flowers , vivid green of grass

trees (in background) and plants (in foreground) etc... 

 

Chenonceau Castle

Castles Loire River Valley

2016

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Kodak Portra 400 and 320 Isos in digit.

Difference also , in the sharpness of lines immediatly visible

 

At first glance , the two pictures are beautiful I admit with you   

But which is closest to reality ? that's the question
I said "the closest" , not the "exact" reality >  It is the eye that has the correctness.

 

Enjoy the difference !

 

Best
Henry
 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Doc Henry

[philipus]

Two impressions from this year's Valborg, or Walpurgis Night, on Gotland. 

 

80 Planar FE Portra 400VC EI100

 

Flickr

 

Flickr

[EoinC]

second is with Ektar - interesting similarities to the Velvia 50, though still different 

It's the Ektar for me, Adam. Great series.

[Doc Henry]

Two impressions from this year's Valborg, or Walpurgis Night, on Gotland. 

 

80 Planar FE Portra 400VC EI100

 

Flickr

 

Flickr

 

Wonderful shots Philip .Superb framing and contre-jour

Thank you for posting

Henry

Edited June 5, 2017 by Doc Henry

[christoph_d]

Two impressions from this year's Valborg, or Walpurgis Night, on Gotland. 

 

80 Planar FE Portra 400VC EI100

 

Flickr

 

Flickr

Very nice. First one for me. Did you catch anything flying on a broom?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stray cat]

Phil

When I got my first film camera about a year ago it was a M6 followed quickly by the Hasselblad 503CW. The way I used to meter then was using L758DR I would get 5 spot reading, sky, shadow, and work my way around the sceen until I had 5. I would then hit the average button and go with that, and to be honest I used to get lovely exposures that way........... I think I will go back to doing that just to try and keep it simple and hopefully ghat way I will have better negs to work with.

Later

 

Neil

 

Exactly the way I'd be looking at it too, Neil. The other stuff is great for some people, but I'm not one of them. I suspect you're not, either!