Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

Hi, Neil. It may be lost in the writing, but I think you may be getting swamped by too many concepts and variables being in the mix at one time.

Under or overexposing the negative is in relation to what a ' normal' exposure would be (either using incident light, or reflective of a mid-tone). Your reference only talks of the tree shadow, which is just one end of the dynamic range that was present on the day. As it was a dull day, the dynamic range is likely small, and so the negative probably won't pick up a lot of contrast. This doesn't matter, with contrast being easy to add, and more difficult to reduce (without making tones go haywire). The end result is that the negative should (in a normal rendition) be exposed such that it captures the full dynamic range, with a tendency to over-expose rather than under-expose.

Developing the negative is where you can increase contrast, if you want. With 8 x 10, you have little concern about grain, so more room to move. If the 1st negative turned out flatter than you wanted, develop the 2nd one longer.

In the print is where you have the final say on contrast. Michael's reference to the '0' for the highlights and '5' for the shadows split-grade printing is spot on, and Les Maclean's article http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21 explains and demonstrates it very well. Using this technique, you are determining the range of black to white which retains detail and tone in both shadows and highlights. using this process, any adjustment should be made against the time of using the '0' and / or the '5', not by changing to a different filter.

 

Stepping back from it, Neil, take some credit - You've shot an image which has captured the full dynamic range, and have developed the negative and run a contact print that gave a decent image. On a flat day, you don't really need to be too concerned about the negative managing to place the shadows right - All detail is going to sit inside the tonal range of the film, as long as you do not wildly under or over-expose. The Zone system becomes more relevant when you have a greater dynamic range and definitive parts of the shot that you must 'get right'.

 

When it comes to developing the 2nd negative, again the standard is likely to be pretty close. You can increase the contrast by developing longer, but first go back to your original negative, and look for whether it has visible detail and tone in the shadows and the highlights. Is the 2nd negative going to benefit from increased contrast, or is it better to pick that up in the printing?

 

Follow Les Maclean's split-grade printing process, and you should end up with an 'optimised' print. Note that all of this is based on wanting a 'normal' print, with deep blacks, controlled highlights, and the wonderful detail that comes with the 8 x 10. All of this goes out the window, of course, if the final intent is something different, or more abstract.

 

As always, Neil, when dealing with many variables, try to change one at a time, so that you know where the effect came from.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

During my humanitarian mission in  Laos 2015 :)

 

 

Kodak Portra 400-Leica M7-35 Summilux Asph

 

 

attachicon.gifImage12suoivnkp400cefbwlfht++++-1000.jpg

 

 

Kodak Portra 160-Leica M7-28 Summicron Asph

 

attachicon.gifImage7quangcanhvn kp160cefbwlfht++++-1000.jpg

 

Best

Henry

These are nice, Henry. Where in Laos were you? All of my time there has been either in the North, up around the China and Myanmar borders, or down around Vientiene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

A quiet tributary of the River Stort Navigation, just a short walk from Harlow in Essex. Portra 400 and 28 Summaron-M.

 

34954281352_dbf394ae2c_b.jpg

 

Beautiful.....got britain writon all over it :)

Neil

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Hi, Neil. It may be lost in the writing, but I think you may be getting swamped by too many concepts and variables being in the mix at one time.

Under or overexposing the negative is in relation to what a ' normal' exposure would be (either using incident light, or reflective of a mid-tone). Your reference only talks of the tree shadow, which is just one end of the dynamic range that was present on the day. As it was a dull day, the dynamic range is likely small, and so the negative probably won't pick up a lot of contrast. This doesn't matter, with contrast being easy to add, and more difficult to reduce (without making tones go haywire). The end result is that the negative should (in a normal rendition) be exposed such that it captures the full dynamic range, with a tendency to over-expose rather than under-expose.

Developing the negative is where you can increase contrast, if you want. With 8 x 10, you have little concern about grain, so more room to move. If the 1st negative turned out flatter than you wanted, develop the 2nd one longer.

In the print is where you have the final say on contrast. Michael's reference to the '0' for the highlights and '5' for the shadows split-grade printing is spot on, and Les Maclean's article http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21 explains and demonstrates it very well. Using this technique, you are determining the range of black to white which retains detail and tone in both shadows and highlights. using this process, any adjustment should be made against the time of using the '0' and / or the '5', not by changing to a different filter.

 

Stepping back from it, Neil, take some credit - You've shot an image which has captured the full dynamic range, and have developed the negative and run a contact print that gave a decent image. On a flat day, you don't really need to be too concerned about the negative managing to place the shadows right - All detail is going to sit inside the tonal range of the film, as long as you do not wildly under or over-expose. The Zone system becomes more relevant when you have a greater dynamic range and definitive parts of the shot that you must 'get right'.

 

When it comes to developing the 2nd negative, again the standard is likely to be pretty close. You can increase the contrast by developing longer, but first go back to your original negative, and look for whether it has visible detail and tone in the shadows and the highlights. Is the 2nd negative going to benefit from increased contrast, or is it better to pick that up in the printing?

 

Follow Les Maclean's split-grade printing process, and you should end up with an 'optimised' print. Note that all of this is based on wanting a 'normal' print, with deep blacks, controlled highlights, and the wonderful detail that comes with the 8 x 10. All of this goes out the window, of course, if the final intent is something different, or more abstract.

 

As always, Neil, when dealing with many variables, try to change one at a time, so that you know where the effect came from.

 

Cheers mate.

Patience has never been my vulture, but I can really see where I need to get that patience bit right. Strting from today I'm going to stick to one method of taking the picture and capturing the negative. I will do the same in the darkroom until I can learn what does what and what not to do ( like forgetting to turn the enlarger off, after putting the print in the developer and turning the clock on for two minutes....done that twice now).

 

Last night was another nightmare. That pot of lily that I bought had one open up and it was sos os pretty. I wanted a small single flower vase so that I could shoot that. I drove over to Publika and in Big shopping they have a flower shop, they had a really cute white antique vase with a note on it to ask the staff........but no staff. I walked around for 20 minutes and then this lady shows up, I asked her if I could buy the vase and she said no, it belonged to her boss....... Pissed off I continued to walk around Publika looking for a vase. On the second floor I found one but it was RM69 ~$18........I kept saying to myself are they serious. I walked out, got into my car, then went back again and bought it. When I got home, I put the flower in the vase and it looked so so pretty, even Nuk said that looks nice. I set up the lights (I have an A2 B&W background that I shot just for this kind of picture) . Anyway I was struggling to get the close focus with my only 360mm lens (135 equivalent 50mm) but after realising I was to close I got everything perfect, I went back to get the film holder that I keep in the fridge and as I put the film holder in the camera the background feller and knocked the frigging vase on the floor, breaking it into 3 million pieces............. Nuk wasn't too happy at the next 2 minutes conversation that i was having with myself.

I guess that flower dint want to get it picture taken after all.

 

If your in KL give me a shout and we can meet up for a coffee, Im here for a month :) :)

 

Later

 

Neil

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Vintage Neil, with a little spell-checker thrown it too, vintage.

Gary

 

Not my forty is that spelling lark.......but most of the times people can get what I am trying to say :)

Neil

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my forty is that spelling lark.......but most of the times people can get what I am trying to say :)

Neil

And I'll put money on the fact that most prefer the au natural way your spell-checker spits the words out Neil, all part of the fun.

Gary

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

....Anyway I was struggling to get the close focus with my only 360mm lens (135 equivalent 50mm) but after realising I was to close I got everything perfect, I went back to get the film holder that I keep in the fridge and as I put the film holder in the camera the background feller and knocked the frigging vase on the floor, breaking it into 3 million pieces....

And, did you take your photograph of the flower on the vase debris?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

CL, 40 Summicron C, Arista 200

 

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!

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Okay some test results

Here is the first neg of the tree trump with zero PP

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!

 

Here is the second neg with one extra minute of devoloping last night zero PP

 

The proof is in the pudding and something good for me to remember :) :)

 

 

Edited by NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

And this is the way that I saw it..........one thing I noticed. See that lump of concert beside the tree trunk. When I composed that I thought I had turned the camera away so that it wasn't in the frame, I guess I forgot or got confused with the picture being back to front on the ground glass......wally :)

 

Neil

 

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!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Neil,

 

Nice photos.

 

Sometimes finding something unintended in a photo that you have composed can help you to learn how to create a better photo in the future.

 

it's not as if this is the last photo you will ever take. You might try thinking of this as a next step in a learning experience.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

 

it's not as if this is the last photo you will ever take. You might try thinking of this as a next step in a learning experience.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Absolutely mate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...