Shoot Black & White or Colour and convert?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The author makes the point that in his experience over the years with students is that there is an "overwhelming pull" towards high contrast and that they should learn to capture mood ( which might involve subdued contrast) rather than just producing high contrast pictures just because they think they should.

 

Just adding and not to conflict, my experience with college students is that with film and conventional enlarging they are sloppy, far more so since I was a student when digital did not really exist.

 

The film bunch generally say that the don't think they should have to spend more time making a print than the digital mavens do. One more point, the digital people don't know what editing their own work means.

.

[Tim B]

Excellent discussion.

 

It is great to read a discussion about using and processing B&W film. It takes me back many, many years. I remember learning about the relationship between exposure and development in relation to the tone curve and how to manipulate these.

 

Apart from the "Ilford Manual of Photography" - an excellent textbook if sometimes a little dense in style, one of the most inspirational and informative books that really nailed this for me was Ansel Adams' "The Negative." Of course this is in the context of his Zone System, but that is just another language for manipulating the tones of the image you are trying to achieve. I haven't checked to see if it is readily available, but would expect it tone quite easy to find. Much to recommend it.

 

Thanks for all who've contributed to this discussion - time to stock up the freezer.

 

Tim

[giordano]

Yellow filter as lens protector: you just have to see how you like it. In my B&W days I used the Yellow 0 (HOOAR/13081) for this because the ordinary Yellow 1 often darkened a blue sky more than I wanted.

[munro]

I attended  a street photography course in Edinburgh last Saturday. We progressed from the High Street near the castle to the Meadows nearby where I took a few shots which included the sky . In some of the shots the sky came out quite well with big fluffy clouds in a darker  sky - quite an improvement on my previous attempts with the UV filter when all I got was a featureless light coloured space. So, all in all, I am quite pleased with the HOOBE (Sp?) filter and I think I will keep it on while I am outside.

 

Slighly off topic, I discovered that I am not really a street photographer. I enjoyed the Meadows scenes -  landscape with small groups flying kites etc but the "in your face" High Street (mostly tourists) stuff bored me and the photos, I think, reflect that.

 

In his book The Art of Photography , which I am reading now, the author, Bruce Barnbaum, says that you should photograph things that really interest you (if you want photographs rather than snaps) - I think he may have a point as my Meadows scenes were much better than my High Street pictures (or perhaps I just find them more interesting).

[pico]

I attended  a street photography course in Edinburgh last Saturday. We progressed from the High Street near the castle to the Meadows nearby where I took a few shots which included the sky . In some of the shots the sky came out quite well with big fluffy clouds in a darker  sky - quite an improvement on my previous attempts with the UV filter when all I got was a featureless light coloured space.

 

It is unlikely that a filter, or none, made the difference. For one, the actual color of the sky and contrast with the clouds is a factor, but especially important is the time of day because the sky is polarized, more-so when the sun is angled, most apparent towards the end of day.

[munro]

I don't understand. I thought that the  point of a filter, especially a yellow one was, inter alia,  to make clouds stand out.

Should I have used a polarising filter instead (or stack them up?). The photos were taken around 2-3 pm

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't understand. I thought that the  point of a filter, especially a yellow one was, inter alia,  to make clouds stand out.

Should I have used a polarising filter instead (or stack them up?). The photos were taken around 2-3 pm

 

The degree of darkening of the sky is entirely dependent upon the depth of blue in the sky, and how much haze there is. More haze equals lesser effect. Haze not as visible to us as it is on film or a sensor. You might consider using an orange filter.

 

Polarization is a different thing depending upon the angle of the sun. With a very wide lens it can be dramatic or disconcerting. Personally, I would not stack filters. Others will differ

[tobey bilek]

The easiest way to find the exact development time for your camera, lens, enlarger/lens, and or scanner is with a grey scale step wedge.  Mine is 40 years old now.

 

Photograph it against a grey card in sun light.   Then scan the resulting negs.  You are looking to have separation in two darkest steps and two brightest steps with  no manipulation, straight scan or print.   Change thermometer, go to condenser or diffusion, and you need to repeat test.

 

As soon as a film is scanned,  there is a linear or straight line curve.  A medium contrast one needs to be added to perk up middle tones 98% of the time.  

 

Someone else`s time will only get you close.  You MUST do your own test.  

[pico]

The easiest way to find the exact development time for your camera, lens, enlarger/lens, and or scanner is with a grey scale step wedge.  Mine is 40 years old now.

 

Oh, darn those entirely reliable ancient tests.

Thanks for that, Tobey!