Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, RayD28 said:

Thanks.  I tried to compensate for the shadows at exposure.  I used an MP and opened up a full stop or so from the meter's reading. I pulled the shadows slightly in LR.  Anymore pulling made it too grainy for my taste for this shot.  

 

Thanks. I shot at 800 ASA and developed at 800 ASA, so I do not think I underexposed in development.  Please let me know if this is incorrect.  Used the Massive Development Chart's recommendation for HP5 shot at 800 ASA using DD-X.  I'm a novice with developing so I have not learned how to tweak chemistry and development times to underexpose when developing. I definitely tried to expose for the shadows but not enough for the horses' eyes.  I knew it would blow out the highlights but I underestimated how much to open up.  

 

At the risk of being argumentative, development times have very little effect on the shadows. Films have a natural speed that is determined by the manufacturer. The goal of exposing is to achieve shadow area that has a density of about 0.1 when the exposure is four stops underexposed from what your meter tells you. This is what the Zone system people would call Zone I – the darkest tone that can be discerned from maximum black.

The Maximum Development Chart will give you a rough place to start in determining development times to produce good highlights with some detail, but it will not provide a way of underexposing the negative and offsetting the lack of light by adjusting development. When the chart provides a time for HP5 at 800 ASA, that might be the best time for a 1 stop underexposure – it does not suggest that this will be a negative that is the equivalent of 400 ASA at the advertised time, or 200ASA at the associated time.  

But there is no free lunch. Development time changes will not provide a way of achieving the best negative while underexposing (or overexposing). There is no “push”, only underexpose. That does not mean the negative will be unusable, but it will be sub-optimal.

Ideally, testing for the practical ASA is the way to go (which for HP5 may not be 400 ASA - I don't know - but I doubt that is 800 ASA). Once you know the ASA that produces rich shadows, you can test/adjust your development time to give you solid highlights that are usually not blown out. The MAssive Development Chart may be a place to start to test for development time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Minox MC FP4 Selfcut  Berlin City West

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

Really interesting, and a wonderful result. Thank you for sharing this Andy. 

5 hours ago, adan said:

On the subject of "pushing": https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/same-old-disease.html

Of note, some people commenting there think HP5 needs to be pushed a bit to get the best midtone contrast. Otherwise it is too muddy (ITHO). It is also of note that Harman/Ilford specifically state in their documentation that:

"It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for HP5 Plus is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard."

A lot of real-world variables in photography. Including that an MP (or any other film Leica except the quartz-timed M7) with a clockwork shutter that has not been adjusted with the past 3 years or so may well be shooting at 1/400th and 1/700th when set to 1/500th and 1/1000th.

________________________________

Anyway, since Michael brought up the Zone system, and I brought up foot speed, and variables - here's another little party trick - 13 stops of tonal range.

Picture was shot to test TMax 400 using what I call "HC-55" - HC-110 dilution B diluted again 1:1 (total dilution 1:63), and agitated once every three minutes (10 minutes total time at 24°C). As a reminder, I'm trying to get the fullest tonal range out of TM400 with my new contrasty Mamiya lenses. Ideally I want a neg that is some density everywhere - nothing clipped to "empty film" - yet with sunlit "whites" that hold detail as well.

In the interests of science, I actually did meter and make notes of the brightest and darkest parts of this subject, as noted on the image. My Sekonic meter in reflected mode said that if I used ISO 400 film and a shutter speed of 1/125, then

- The brightest sunlit wall would require an aperture of f/64 to render as medium gray.

- The darkest shadow (polka-dot counter curtain shaded by coffee stand) would require an aperture of f/0.7 to render as medium gray (Sorry, Noctilux users - it ain't fast enough!).

- A mathematical average exposure based on those readings comes out as 1/125 at f/5.6

- An incident reading from the subject location (i.e. the "room light" - Sekonic again) came out as 1/125 and f/8

- a reflected overall reading of the scene came out as  1/125 and f/13 - shows how much hot highlights can "bias" a reflected reading. They can be untrustworthy.

- the actual exposure was made Zone-System-style - I took that  f/0.7 shadow reading, and then underexposed 3 stops to put it in Zone II (distinguishable detail and texture, not just distinguishable from black). 1/125 at f/2.0 (but since my lens was not that fast, I used the equivalent 1/30 at f/4.0).

The picture does just barely hold detail distinguishable from white or black across the 13-stop range. (But you'd have to see the highlights at full res - and squint a little - to see the "bathroom tile" texture of that wall, or the wood grain in the white Treehouse logo).

Coincidentally, just after doing this, I discovered a reference to Kodak's claims for "dynamic range" of B&W film - 13 stops.

However, I found the "HC-55" technique to be a bit unpredictable, and not very sharp (HC-110 has a lot of grain-solvent action). Two rolls developed one after the other were quite different in shadow detail. I'm finding the Rodinal 1:50 to be more consistent roll to roll, and produce more sharpness and mid-tone contrast while still holding the highlights and shadows.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Michael Hiles said:

 

At the risk of being argumentative, development times have very little effect on the shadows. Films have a natural speed that is determined by the manufacturer. The goal of exposing is to achieve shadow area that has a density of about 0.1 when the exposure is four stops underexposed from what your meter tells you. This is what the Zone system people would call Zone I – the darkest tone that can be discerned from maximum black.

The Maximum Development Chart will give you a rough place to start in determining development times to produce good highlights with some detail, but it will not provide a way of underexposing the negative and offsetting the lack of light by adjusting development. When the chart provides a time for HP5 at 800 ASA, that might be the best time for a 1 stop underexposure – it does not suggest that this will be a negative that is the equivalent of 400 ASA at the advertised time, or 200ASA at the associated time.  

But there is no free lunch. Development time changes will not provide a way of achieving the best negative while underexposing (or overexposing). There is no “push”, only underexpose. That does not mean the negative will be unusable, but it will be sub-optimal.

Ideally, testing for the practical ASA is the way to go (which for HP5 may not be 400 ASA - I don't know - but I doubt that is 800 ASA). Once you know the ASA that produces rich shadows, you can test/adjust your development time to give you solid highlights that are usually not blown out. The MAssive Development Chart may be a place to start to test for development time.

Thanks Michael.  I don't think your comments are argumentative at all, but rather educational.  It sounds like I need to better understand the concepts and results of pushing film.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Berlin Lietzensee Minox GT-E Fuji 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 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again with M6, Portra and Zeiss

 

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 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xícara de Café said:

Nikon F2 Photomic, Micro-Nikkor 55mm 1:2.8, Kodak Tri-X 400, Kodak D-76 1:1.

Dauntless, the rise of the FedoraMen (FM)?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Banisters

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 15
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...