I like film...(open thread)

[stray cat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just trying to get my head around this. When I shot the film I underexposed my metered shadows by 2 stops to get the shadows in zone 3........How do I recover my highlights in the developing of the neg.....do I add developing time or remove time........my feeling is to remove time to make the highlights whiter.....is that correct??

 

Neil

Neil I think you may be confusing the zone system with the general rule of thumb photographers have always used. "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" is a kind of general rule that perhaps Ansel Adams tried to codify when he developed the zone system. In effect it means that you should give slightly MORE exposure to the shadows to ensure there's detail in them, that they are not just an amorphous blob. As you've given more exposure to the shadows, normal development would make that negative's black metallic silver of the highlights into its own amorphous blob - thus losing any detail in the highlights. So you'd give the negative LESS development to compensate - in both negative and print, the dark areas, which you'll observe in your tray in the darkroom, develop first. These reach full development before the lighter areas. Thus giving the negative LESS development for an overexposed negative (which you overexposed to retain shadow detail in the dark or shadow areas) will mean that those highlight areas don't keep developing and losing detail in the process.

 

Sorry - it sounds long winded, but in practise it is pretty straightforward. In general, for contrasty conditions (deep shadows, bright highlights) you'd tend towards overexposure and underdevelopment to "tame" the contrast range a bit. In flat conditions, such as in the lovely picture you've posted above, you may err towards underexposure and overdevelopment, which will slightly limit the mid tones but will expand the contrast range. The other options - overexposure and overdevelopment, or underexposure and underdevelopment, are just wrong. Of course "normal" exposure and "normal" development are optimal, and suit most conditions very well.

[Guest )-(]

Chris, you might want to add that it helps to sacrifice copious amounts of baryt paper and time to please those darkroom gods ...

 

Wasting paper is definitely my routine sacrifice to those fickle Gods. Forget to stop down, nudge the easel, hit the wrong timer button, notice some obvious defect on the negative or just realise you hate the picture now you really see it etc...

 

Great stuff for getting stuck in Neil. FWIW I'd try and find a 'bulletproof' negative to start with - something nice and easy to print, with good shadow and highlight detail visible under the loupe.

Reward your efforts so far with a print to feel good about that didn't get too involved to get there. Then you can burn through the rest of the RC paper and get stuck into the VC Fiber stuff - with 8x10 negatives you definitely deserve  the good stuff imho. Ymmv. 

 

I'm only 12 months into printing and heavily addicted already. I spent all my free time this weekend making screens to dry prints on.

Then there's the plans to try toning, let alone actually flattening/mounting/presenting the prints I've made in some way. Slow and steady!

 

Great job so far anyway, enjoy...

 

The weekend's output (and some fine Belgian inspiration for input.)

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!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Neil I think you may be confusing the zone system with the general rule of thumb photographers have always used. "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" is a kind of general rule that perhaps Ansel Adams tried to codify when he developed the zone system. In effect it means that you should give slightly MORE exposure to the shadows to ensure there's detail in them, that they are not just an amorphous blob. As you've given more exposure to the shadows, normal development would make that negative's black metallic silver of the highlights into its own amorphous blob - thus losing any detail in the highlights. So you'd give the negative LESS development to compensate - in both negative and print, the dark areas, which you'll observe in your tray in the darkroom, develop first. These reach full development before the lighter areas. Thus giving the negative LESS development for an overexposed negative (which you overexposed to retain shadow detail in the dark or shadow areas) will mean that those highlight areas don't keep developing and losing detail in the process.

 

Sorry - it sounds long winded, but in practise it is pretty straightforward. In general, for contrasty conditions (deep shadows, bright highlights) you'd tend towards overexposure and underdevelopment to "tame" the contrast range a bit. In flat conditions, such as in the lovely picture you've posted above, you may err towards underexposure and overdevelopment, which will slightly limit the mid tones but will expand the contrast range. The other options - overexposure and overdevelopment, or underexposure and underdevelopment, are just wrong. Of course "normal" exposure and "normal" development are optimal, and suit most conditions very well.

Phil thanks for the feed back. Basically I have been fighting with that dead tree picture above. I spot metered for the shadowy area under the trunk of the tree. I then under exposed 2 stops to move from zone 5 to zone 3. There was no bellows factor and no reciprocal factor. When I got home I developed the neg at 5 1/2 minutes (box said 6 minutes). In the darkroom I did a strip of 3 second exposures with #2 filter and for the highlights(sky) the best was ~7 seconds. I did another strip for the shadows at 20 second exposures using #4 filter and that gave me 80 seconds. So I did the 7 seconds first then the 80 seconds next but the picture looked muddy. Sky to dark. So I did another print at 4 seconds #2 and 60 seconds #4. That looked better but not great.

I then scanned the negative and low and behold the neg looked just like my first print.

So now I'm guessing that unless you get the negative (initial exposure right) your fighting a loosing battle. The lily picture I posted a couple of days back was a lot easier to work with after following Michael advise on the 0 and #5 filters......... I've no idea why I changed to #2 and #4

Once again thanks for the help here. Tomorrow I will pray for the sun gods to give me some shadows and highlights and try again

Neil

[}{B]

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!

 

Scotland - Firkin point Loch Lomond looking north

 

Taken with a Ricoh GR1 and either Kodachrome64 or Fuji Sensia. The tree was blown over in a winter gale some years ago .

 

 

[philipus]

I think I prefer this one, Adam. The first one is nice too. I prefer it to no. 2 because of is cleaner composition (like the sign at the lower right which intrudes imho). But no. 4 is the most interesting one to me.

 

I think I would have tried to have more people in front of the balloon (not easily achievable, I admit) and just a little bit shorter shutter time to get a stronger blurred effect. I've always liked Alexey Titarenko's blurry work so that may affect my opinion.

 

Technically, so exposure-wise and scanning-wise, they're all fantastic.

 

br

Philip

 

180/Ektar (with a 6 stop ND grad to remove all of the people)

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Loch Lomond.jpg

 

Scotland - Firkin point Loch Lomond looking north

 

Taken with a Ricoh GR1 and either Kodachrome64 or Fuji Sensia. The tree was blown over in a winter gale some years ago .

 

Stop....I'm missing home now :).

Lovely shot

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And every time I pass these poles, I can't help but take a shot.

Same details as above.

Gary

 

I love the poles too Gary

[Doc Henry]

Wasting paper is definitely my routine sacrifice to those fickle Gods. Forget to stop down, nudge the easel, hit the wrong timer button, notice some obvious defect on the negative or just realise you hate the picture now you really see it etc...

 

Great stuff for getting stuck in Neil. FWIW I'd try and find a 'bulletproof' negative to start with - something nice and easy to print, with good shadow and highlight detail visible under the loupe.

Reward your efforts so far with a print to feel good about that didn't get too involved to get there. Then you can burn through the rest of the RC paper and get stuck into the VC Fiber stuff - with 8x10 negatives you definitely deserve  the good stuff imho. Ymmv. 

 

I'm only 12 months into printing and heavily addicted already. I spent all my free time this weekend making screens to dry prints on.

Then there's the plans to try toning, let alone actually flattening/mounting/presenting the prints I've made in some way. Slow and steady!

 

Great job so far anyway, enjoy...

 

The weekend's output (and some fine Belgian inspiration for input.)

IMG_4159.JPG

 

You know what interesting me in this picture , it's a wine bottle

Nice work Coog

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

Loch Lomond.jpg

 

Scotland - Firkin point Loch Lomond looking north

 

Taken with a Ricoh GR1 and either Kodachrome64 or Fuji Sensia. The tree was blown over in a winter gale some years ago .

 

Wow ,  it's "magnifique" color , composition

Thanks and welcome

More Loch  please

Best

Henry

Edited June 5, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

During my humanitarian mission in  Laos 2015

 

 

Kodak Portra 400-Leica M7-35 Summilux Asph

 

 

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 160-Leica M7-28 Summicron Asph

 

 

Best

Henry

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

For me it's fine and beautiful like that , Neil. The weather as you said is grey !

I am not in favor of modifying as in digital (by photo software , a bad habit) the

atmosphere of the photo.Stay Nature  !

If I am you, and to highlight the tree trunk , I'll let some more seconds in the

developer and watch directly the result in the darkroom with your red lamp !

Best

Henry

 

Henry

When I took that tree shot, I took and identical shot as a back up and I haven't developed that neg yet. When I developed that first negative I developed it at 5 1/2 minutes, and its +/- 2 stops under exposed, Because I took a backup shot with exactly the same setting, if I want to try and recover this negative should I develop it at maybe 7 minutes to make it brighter........Sorry Im confused??

Neil

[honcho]

Saltmarsh, Brancaster. 

 

Cambo Wide with 6x12 back

SA 47xl

Acros 100 in APH09

Lee O22

 

 

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!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Saltmarsh, Brancaster. 

 

Cambo Wide with 6x12 back

SA 47xl

Acros 100 in APH09

Lee O22

 

Love the S shape of the river Steve 

[Doc Henry]

Neil don't forget if you let too much the paper in the developer you obtain a not nice black

So you must find a compromise . You can make tests wih 7 mns , less or more to see

If it's MF and big format paper (what size of paper ?) , I have less experience , but I think

it's the same principle

For 24x36 negative and 17,8x24 cms format Ilford Multigrade paper I let less 1 minute so

I think 7mns in the developer, it's too much.I have a Focomat enlarger (lamp 150 Watts)

with a Leitz Focotar lens .

Best

Henry

Edited June 5, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Saltmarsh, Brancaster. 

 

Cambo Wide with 6x12 back

SA 47xl

Acros 100 in APH09

Lee O22

 

Steve SUPERB landscape

Thank you

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

I love landscape and Fuji film  has also nice color specially at sunrise 

 

 

Leica R4S-50 Summicron-Fuji Superia 100-Nikon Coolscan V

 

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]

Neil don't forget if you let too much the paper in the developer you obtain a not nice black

So you must find a compromise . You can make tests wih 7 mns , less or more to see

If it's MF and big format paper (what size of paper ?) , I have less experience , but I think

it's the same principle

For 24x36 negative and 17,8x24 cms format Ilford Multigrade paper I let less 1 minute so

I think 7mns in the developer, it's too much.I have a Focomat enlarger (lamp 150 Watts)

with a Leitz Focotar lens .

Best

Henry

 

Henry

I'm meaning developing the negative not the film, the box says 6 minutes but I want the negative to be brighter.................I really don't even know if that is possible but if it is I'm trying to figure out if it need more or less developing time?

Best

 

Neil

[Doc Henry]

Henry

I'm meaning developing the negative not the film, the box says 6 minutes but I want the negative to be brighter.................I really don't even know if that is possible but if it is I'm trying to figure out if it need more or less developing time?

Best

 

Neil

 

Sorry for the confusion because we speak about print above

If it's negative , you must develop less , if you let more time it will be darker.

The ideal is a good exposure at the time of shooting with the camera

Henry

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Sorry for the confusion because we speak about print above

If it's negative , you must develop less , if you let more time it will be darker.

The ideal is a good exposure at the time of shooting with the camera

Henry

 

Cheers mate....i've got it :)

Neil

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sparkassenkunde]

For the month of May, a giant chrome blow up ballerina was placed in Rockefeller Center in NYC.  She towered over us with her grace.

 

Her last day was last Friday and so I went in the morning with my Linhof Technika Press 6x9 (which, like Jean-Marc, I also rec'd from my late Father) and some Velvia 50 and Ektar and shot her for the memories (and for a nice print opportunity  )

 

I'd love any feedback on these, which POVs are cool etc.

 

The first two were with the Zeiss 53mm Biogon (big brother to the SWC lens, only much older).

First is the Velvia 50

 

 

180/Ektar (with a 6 stop ND grad to remove all of the people)

 

These two are my favorites from the series, I especially like the one with the dark background, which separates the ballerina nicely from the surroundings. The only small downside in the Velvia shot with the complete Rockefeller Center in the background is the fact, that some parts of the Ballerina are cut off.