Jump to content

Overexposing and pushing the film


fatihayoglu

Recommended Posts

Grain is good :)

For the younger, Kodak described their 2475 as a Recording Film for up to ASA 4000, at best and depending upon the color of light - tungsten biased was good. I do not know if it is still available. If you are a digital maven you might laugh out loud about how difficult it was to make low-light photographs in the pure analog age, and that is perfectly appropriate. Enjoy what you have today!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No most grain is not good. 

 

I always thought grain was a technological problem. After many years of experimenting in my dark room, and numerous developer chemistries,  Always worked with FP4, after trying them all. It's  still my favourite. 

 

But that's just me, some people like grain, and some noise. 

 

ATHOH, don't like smooth plastic skins and images either.

 

 

So it's  a balancing act really. 

 

 

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the difference between us is that you speak in terms of exposure of a negative and i speak in terms of exposure of an image. They may as a technical matter in a classroom be apples and oranges.

 

 

But i believe that i have most comprehensively and helpfully and practically addresed the OP and you have provided helpful technical detail that one can read on a film box or a book.

 

The proof is in the pudding in my images. They all were shot with an ETTR workflow and push processed. And they all have a pushed feel and were - as an image - slightly overexposed right out of the scan which made them more digitally editable. This is exactly what the OP asked about. I think your (and some other) responses may have missed the mark, which is one of the reasons that i commented.

I agree with you both. My take is technically adan is correct and artistically A.Miller is correct for her style. Unless you show a pushed method with the same image exposed and developed at box speed you cannot make the statement that it is technically correct (in fairness, you did use the word practical), only what works for you.

 

A. Miller, your photos work for me. I have seen images exposed at 1600 that work as well, even though the shadow detail is weak/non-existent. One thing I do to answer the question of what pushing / developing combo does is to 1) Shoot a roll (in this case Tri-X) @ 400, make 9 exposures of a textured surface from Zone 1 through Zone 9 then develop at EI 400 conditions. Keep these negatives. 2) do the same thing for any EI / develop combo you desire. 3) Compare the negatives. This will tell you what you need to know about what is going on and can make an informed artistic decision... or at least an informed starting point. Only real life images will tell you if it is really good for your artistic vision. If what you get is good for you... go for it. If it looks good, it is good!  Same goes for EI400 developed at 400 conditions... it may not float your boat.

 

Keeping the series of 9 negatives w/ the variations is pretty handy for reference.

Edited by JimP
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP... You may have already done this (if so, disregard), or depending on how much time you have before your trip... If you are developing at a lab find out what pushing they will do. They may be open to anything, or limit you to 800 or 1600 develop times. Next, independent of lab or home,  make sure you expose a roll at home of some scenes that you anticipate to shoot at this EI and develop with the method you choose before committing a trip's worth of images. Remember, there are variables in developing such as developer used, dilution and agitation. Hopefully these will be small (developing lab conforms to a standard), but you never know, I have experimented with changing these variables and have seen marked differences. You may consider picking a development method and bracket exposures +/- half a stop or more on the same roll to see the effect of exposure change. This will help inform you better on what EI/Develop combo to use.

Edited by JimP
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the younger, Kodak described their 2475 as a Recording Film for up to ASA 4000, at best and depending upon the color of light - tungsten biased was good. I do not know if it is still available. If you are a digital maven you might laugh out loud about how difficult it was to make low-light photographs in the pure analog age, and that is perfectly appropriate. Enjoy what you have today!

 

That was surveillance film, as I remember it in the early 70s and used it for fun. Kodak stopped making it, not sure when, as there are a lot better ways today to capture what the bad guys are doing in the dark :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I am experimenting shooting film, using TX400 with my MP. I have read a lot for film, it is good to overexpose. One of the ways to do it is adjusting the ISO to the half of the film speed. I also would like to push the film to 1600 as I’m going to use if during evening, night.

So if I adjust my ISO dial to 800 and ask the lab to push the film to 1600, do I effectively overexpose 1 stop and push the film 2 stops?

 

Thanks,

 

Fatih

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I'm going to answer your question the best I can. 

 

1st; to overexpose your film...       set your camera to 200 ISO.     Simply tell the film lab you shot the 400 ISO film at 200 ISO and they will know what to do.    (They will Pull the film one stop)        (Meaning less time in the developer.)      

 

2nd; to underexpose your film...   set your camera to 1600 ISO.   Simply tell the film lab you shot the 400 ISO film at 1600 ISO and they will know what to do.   (They will Push the film two stops)    (Meaning more time in the developer.) 

 

It really is that simple. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do remember correctly. I used that film in several settings. IIRC, DK-50 was the "recommended" developer, although people developed that film in HC110 ... hell, I saw one guy batch it in Dektol (a print developer) ....

 

Yes. Digital technology has made some things easier ... .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to answer your question the best I can. 

 

1st; to overexpose your film...       set your camera to 200 ISO.     Simply tell the film lab you shot the 400 ISO film at 200 ISO and they will know what to do.    (They will Pull the film one stop)        (Meaning less time in the developer.)      

 

2nd; to underexpose your film...   set your camera to 1600 ISO.   Simply tell the film lab you shot the 400 ISO film at 1600 ISO and they will know what to do.   (They will Push the film two stops)    (Meaning more time in the developer.) 

 

It really is that simple. 

 

whoopdeedoo - how does that answer the OP's question?  He wants to do both, not one or the other...but as to the image and not to the film...

Link to post
Share on other sites

whoopdeedoo - how does that answer the OP's question?  He wants to do both, not one or the other...but as to the image and not to the film...

 

The OP basically asks if it "is good to overexpose." 

 

The answer is generally yes, (particularly for negatives) if he shot 400 ISO film at 200 ISO; he does over expose the film by one stop.  Developing film normally that's been overexposed will result with images that have more shadow detail on the negative which can be good (if that's the effect the OP is looking for.)  The overall result will be less contrast on the negative.  That might be good (as an example) on a really bright sunny day.       

 

Then he asks "...if I adjust my ISO dial to 800 and ask the lab to push the film to 1600, do I effectively overexpose 1 stop and push the film 2 stops?

 

The result is over developing (not overexposing) by one stop, and (technically a two stop push, but really only a one stop push (from the effective 800 ISO in camera exposure.)  The effect is basically whites with less or no detail along with blacks with less or no detail...effectively increasing the contrast.  That might be good (as an example) on a really super cloudy very low light day.   

 

Now; if I took the OPs words literally when he asks "do I effectively overexpose 1 stop and push the film 2 stops?"

 

I would state to literally do that he would have to shoot the film at 200 ISO, and ask for the film to be developed at 800 ISO.  In this case; the image on the negative would probably have some shadow detail and some highlight detail.  It would have more contrast, but not as much contrast as shooting at 800 ISO and developing it at 1600 ISO.   

 

My advise (even though he is not asking for it...) if he wants to push 400 ISO film to 1600 ISO; is to shoot the film at 1600 ISO, and ask for a two stop push development. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm slightly off topic in what follows, so please excuse me, but since we have informed members about I thought I'd chip in for related advice.

 

I'm new to film after a thirty-odd year gap, so what knowledge before is ancient history. I've read that film such as HP5+ with a 400 box speed is optimistically rated by the manufacturer and should be exposed at 200. I don't know if this is true and whether the advice holds true for Tri X as well. Let's say it's true for HP5+, therefore exposing at 800 and developing at 1600 is equivalent to standard development adjusted as I mentioned earlier, ie expose at 200 and develop normal at 400. Is that so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is - not necessarily, but maybe. ;)

 

As others have said, for a beginner (or a re-beginner), the best approach is to start by simply doing what the manufacturer recommends. Expose at the box speed, and develop for the box times. Then evaluate for yourself how your results look.

 

There are many variables beyond the film and the developer/time that will ultimately influence what constitutes a "good" negative - metering style (spot, semi-spot (Leica M), center-weighted, full-picture averaging, reflected vs. incident, simply pointing the meter at the middle of the subject, or carefully metering for shadows, or faces, or some other specific part of the subject, or a gray card); the idiosyncracies of a specific meter; the lighting range of the scene; the type of enlarger or enlarger-equivalent illumination to be used (point-light, condenser, diffuse - or for scanners: laser, LED, diffused LED); the macro-contrast of the camera lens used - not to mention personal preference, for dark and moody, or bright and "high-key," or whatever.

 

With a roll-film camera (35mm or 120), there is also the problem that while you can meter and expose each individual picture differently, you cannot easily develop each individual picture differently. So unless you devote a whole roll to a specific scene contrast, you will always get some pictures that are an imperfect balance of exposure and development. You have to come up with choices and a strategy that will be "pretty good" across a whole range of subjects and lighting. Shooting HP5 (or Tri-X, for that matter) at 200 is one such strategy - a "busy-man's" way of always "exposing for the shadows" by biasing all exposures in that direction, without having to actually stop and meter the shadows. Very useful for fast-changing situations like street or news photography.

 

Ansel Adams jumped into the Hasselblad system when it came out because he could carry multiple 120 film backs, all loaded with the same film, but then choose among the backs according to the contrast range of the subject, and develop each roll for a specific subject contrast range. One could carry 3 Leicas loaded with HP5+, one marked "high contrast", one marked "low contrast" and one marked "normal" - and then swap between them according to scene contrast (shoot the first metering at, perhaps, 200, and developing for 200; shoot the second metering at 800 and developing for 800 - or 1250 or 1600 like A miller, and the third at 400 and 400). Or - after experimentation, some different ISOs and developing times.

 

Some parables of exposure and devlopment strategies:

 

Parable 1: AA's "Zone System" is the crème de la crème of strategies - a whole series of "lab tests" for every step of the photographic process, devoted to getting the perfect balance of exposure and contrast in a negative, for easier printing. AA measured everything for himself - although he too always started from the manufacturer's recommendations (but rarely ended there). In a nutshell (and using dozens of sheets of film), he would:

 

1) determine what enlarger exposure would just barely reach pure black on photo paper, exposing through a "blank" negative (film base + fog density only) - Zone 0

2) determine what exposure (ASA/ISO) was needed for a given film, to just barely separate dark, dark grays from that pure black, with a negative exposed to a gray card (Zone 5) and underexposed 3 or 4 stops from the gray-card reading (Zone 2, or Zone 1 in his original scheme) - i.e., in future, anything 3-4 stops darker than a gray card would just barely register as detail in the shadows at his determined enlarger exposure. That became "his" ISO for that film, in all cases.

3) determine what maximum film density would print as a gray just barely distinguishable from paper white, using the settings he had settled on from 1) and 2).

4) determine what development would create that density in a negative overexposed to a gray card by 4 stops (Zone 9) - that then became his "normal" development time.

5) determine what reduced development would create that highlight density in a negative exposed to a scene with a brightness range of 10 (later 9) stops - that became his "N(ormal) minus 1 (stop)" developing time, which reduced the film contrast of a scene with 1 stop more contrast than normal.

6) repeat step 5 for scenes of N-2, N-3, N+1, N+2, N+3 and perhaps even N-0.5 and N+0.5 contrast ranges. (He kept a lot of notebooks ;) )

 

Then, he would meter several parts of a scene he was going to photograph - particularly, the darkest tone where he wanted detail (which, from 2, would give him the exposure needed) and the brightest highlight where he wanted detail just distinguishable from white (from 3) and then make his exposure, and mark the film carrier according to the total brightness range as "N" or "N-2" or N+1" and use the predetermined (from 4,5,6) developing time for that scene contrast range, with that specific piece of film.

 

And still sometimes spend hours in the darkroom dodging and burning for localized effects - but at least he got a "full-scale" original negative that did not blow the highlights or lose the shadow detail he wanted, or under-use the film's available range (too flat and low-contrast a negative).

 

Obviously unworkable for Leica use, unless one carries multiple cameras. But it is simply the idea of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" taken to technical near-perfection. And the same way that the ISO, Kodak, and Ilford (approximately) determine their own box ISOs and box developing times. Except they use densitometers to determine their target "minimum shadow" and "maximum highlight" densities.

 

Parable 2: The columnist and Leica user Bill Pierce described a fictitious dream in a column titled "Down-and-dirty metering" in the 1970s (Camera 35 magazine) - paraphrased:

 

"I had a dream last night, in which I was photographing a lovely rose with my Leica. I grabbed my spot meter, and was metering every part of the flower - the tops of the petals, the bottoms of the petals, the stem - when I heard footsteps behind me. It was Ansel Adams. He leaned over and whispered in my ear....."Bracket!"

 

Parable 3: When I moved to Leica (in 2001) I began shooting B&W film again (has used only color slide film with my SLRs). With my unmetered M4-2, I used a small digital hand-held incident meter. For my workflow - that meter, Leica Mandler lenses, Ilford Pan F for minimum grain, scanning the negatives with an LED-illuminated Nikon Coolscan, I determined that my best results overall came from: exposing the ISO 50 film at EI 80, developing 10% less than the normal ISO 50 Ilford box time, in Ilford DDX developer, using Ilford's recommended agitate-once-per-minute in a steel Nikor tank.

 

Those were thin negs by traditional (darkroom printing) standards - but scanners, with a more or less fixed exposure time, love thin negs. They can suck out shadow density variations almost invisible to the naked eye, and do not like high densities in highlights (blocked up and grainy). That was my strategy in exposure and development to accomodate my mechanical workflow - the specific performance and needs of my meter, my M4-2's actual (as opposed to marked) shutter speeds and apertures, my scanner (and quite possibly, my darkroom thermometer!). Others' MMV.

 

Now that I shoot film in 120 only, I use a different strategy. With older MF lenses, leaf shutters, a different incident meter, a flat-bed scanner that has diffused LED-backlit lighting, Kodak TMax 400 (100 when it was available) and Kodak HC-110 - I find Kodak's box speed and box times work exactly right. Except with a contrasty Zeiss 38mm Biogon - where I overexpose 1/2 stop and reduce development 10%. Fortunately, the Hassy SWC is self-contained, so all the 38mm shots go on their own roll of film.

 

The summary would be - start with the box speeds and development. Study the results. Decide if you like them, or if not, what you don't like. Adjust your exposure (for overall density) and development (for contrast and highlight density) until you get something you do like.

 

BTW - previously, I was not critiquing A miller's chosen strategy of exposing at 800 and developing for more than 800. Just the way he explained it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adan -

 

The important thing you left out of your summary of Ansel Adam's exposure workflow is that the zone system can be used to produce an infinite number of renditions on the same scene, each "perfectly balanced" in its own way.    Finding zone 5 (middle gray) on the subject in your scene that is actually middle gray may not give you the resulting image that you are looking for, as the dark subject might end up being too dark w/o important detail or the light subject might end up too light.  In these cases - which are very common - the photographer needs to use his own vision as to how he wants to deal with this.  He could increase the exposure a little to grab more detail in the shadows at the expense of perhaps some detail in the bright subjects, or vice versa.  So, the whole zone system thing is nothing more than way to anchor a photographer with solid reference points.  I think it is very important to learn and understand.  But it won't lead to a single outcome but rather will simply allow one to express himself more broadly with executing on his vision.

 

Ansel Adams is an interesting character to me.  He was obviously OCD about his workflow.  Meticulous as one can get.  Yet, he very commonly criticized his own execution.  The photos in his book, The Negative, are filled with images that have a caption associated with it containing self-critiques from him that he should have made this adjustment or that adjustment, or overdid this or under that.  There is an internal inconsistency there that I can't quite reconcile (i.e., if he was the God of exposure and so exacting with everything, how could he still make mistakes?!? :wacko: ).  I also once heard him say in a video that he DID NOT bracket.  Why would he?  He was perfect!!  An ego thing?  Who knows.  I heard him say that sometimes he took two photos of the same scene using the exact same exposure as a way to have a "back up" negative  just in case.  According to Ansel, you need to know you exposure rules cold and use your mind's eye to execute your exposure according to your vision of how a scene should be exposed.  There may be many visions for a particular scene, but there is only one correct exposure per each vision.  

 

In my opinion, the strictness of the approach that was purportedly taken by Ansel - and one that you persist in advocating - is unnecessary to the normal film shooting folk, and many photographers that came before him and came after him have proven this definitively.  I heard Joel Meyerowitz once say in a video (can be found on Youtube) that the way he started learning the principles of exposure is that he went out in the street and shot, and looked at the results; if they were too dark, he would increase the exposure a little.  If the results were too bright, he would decrease the exposure a little.  He found his groove, obviously.  And you can't argue with his results, are all that matter at the end of the day.

 

In this entire context, really find some of your points below hard to follow and internalize: does 10% less dev time really matter??? Is rating a 50 ISO film at 80 really going to make a material difference in today's world with most people?? I sometimes shoot Ektar at 80 and I really cannot say that there is a meaningful difference in result.  Let's not forget that C41 and most B&W film stocks are very forgiving .  

 

SWC's lens is contrasty??   :wacko:

 

The answer is - not necessarily, but maybe. ;)

 

As others have said, for a beginner (or a re-beginner), the best approach is to start by simply doing what the manufacturer recommends. Expose at the box speed, and develop for the box times. Then evaluate for yourself how your results look.

 

There are many variables beyond the film and the developer/time that will ultimately influence what constitutes a "good" negative - metering style (spot, semi-spot (Leica M), center-weighted, full-picture averaging, reflected vs. incident, simply pointing the meter at the middle of the subject, or carefully metering for shadows, or faces, or some other specific part of the subject, or a gray card); the idiosyncracies of a specific meter; the lighting range of the scene; the type of enlarger or enlarger-equivalent illumination to be used (point-light, condenser, diffuse - or for scanners: laser, LED, diffused LED); the macro-contrast of the camera lens used - not to mention personal preference, for dark and moody, or bright and "high-key," or whatever.

 

With a roll-film camera (35mm or 120), there is also the problem that while you can meter and expose each individual picture differently, you cannot easily develop each individual picture differently. So unless you devote a whole roll to a specific scene contrast, you will always get some pictures that are an imperfect balance of exposure and development. You have to come up with choices and a strategy that will be "pretty good" across a whole range of subjects and lighting. Shooting HP5 (or Tri-X, for that matter) at 200 is one such strategy - a "busy-man's" way of always "exposing for the shadows" by biasing all exposures in that direction, without having to actually stop and meter the shadows. Very useful for fast-changing situations like street or news photography.

 

Ansel Adams jumped into the Hasselblad system when it came out because he could carry multiple 120 film backs, all loaded with the same film, but then choose among the backs according to the contrast range of the subject, and develop each roll for a specific subject contrast range. One could carry 3 Leicas loaded with HP5+, one marked "high contrast", one marked "low contrast" and one marked "normal" - and then swap between them according to scene contrast (shoot the first metering at, perhaps, 200, and developing for 200; shoot the second metering at 800 and developing for 800 - or 1250 or 1600 like A miller, and the third at 400 and 400). Or - after experimentation, some different ISOs and developing times.

 

Some parables of exposure and devlopment strategies:

 

Parable 1: AA's "Zone System" is the crème de la crème of strategies - a whole series of "lab tests" for every step of the photographic process, devoted to getting the perfect balance of exposure and contrast in a negative, for easier printing. AA measured everything for himself - although he too always started from the manufacturer's recommendations (but rarely ended there). In a nutshell (and using dozens of sheets of film), he would:

 

1) determine what enlarger exposure would just barely reach pure black on photo paper, exposing through a "blank" negative (film base + fog density only) - Zone 0

2) determine what exposure (ASA/ISO) was needed for a given film, to just barely separate dark, dark grays from that pure black, with a negative exposed to a gray card (Zone 5) and underexposed 3 or 4 stops from the gray-card reading (Zone 2, or Zone 1 in his original scheme) - i.e., in future, anything 3-4 stops darker than a gray card would just barely register as detail in the shadows at his determined enlarger exposure. That became "his" ISO for that film, in all cases.

3) determine what maximum film density would print as a gray just barely distinguishable from paper white, using the settings he had settled on from 1) and 2).

4) determine what development would create that density in a negative overexposed to a gray card by 4 stops (Zone 9) - that then became his "normal" development time.

5) determine what reduced development would create that highlight density in a negative exposed to a scene with a brightness range of 10 (later 9) stops - that became his "N(ormal) minus 1 (stop)" developing time, which reduced the film contrast of a scene with 1 stop more contrast than normal.

6) repeat step 5 for scenes of N-2, N-3, N+1, N+2, N+3 and perhaps even N-0.5 and N+0.5 contrast ranges. (He kept a lot of notebooks ;) )

 

Then, he would meter several parts of a scene he was going to photograph - particularly, the darkest tone where he wanted detail (which, from 2, would give him the exposure needed) and the brightest highlight where he wanted detail just distinguishable from white (from 3) and then make his exposure, and mark the film carrier according to the total brightness range as "N" or "N-2" or N+1" and use the predetermined (from 4,5,6) developing time for that scene contrast range, with that specific piece of film.

 

And still sometimes spend hours in the darkroom dodging and burning for localized effects - but at least he got a "full-scale" original negative that did not blow the highlights or lose the shadow detail he wanted, or under-use the film's available range (too flat and low-contrast a negative).

 

Obviously unworkable for Leica use, unless one carries multiple cameras. But it is simply the idea of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" taken to technical near-perfection. And the same way that the ISO, Kodak, and Ilford (approximately) determine their own box ISOs and box developing times. Except they use densitometers to determine their target "minimum shadow" and "maximum highlight" densities.

 

Parable 2: The columnist and Leica user Bill Pierce described a fictitious dream in a column titled "Down-and-dirty metering" in the 1970s (Camera 35 magazine) - paraphrased:

 

"I had a dream last night, in which I was photographing a lovely rose with my Leica. I grabbed my spot meter, and was metering every part of the flower - the tops of the petals, the bottoms of the petals, the stem - when I heard footsteps behind me. It was Ansel Adams. He leaned over and whispered in my ear....."Bracket!"

 

Parable 3: When I moved to Leica (in 2001) I began shooting B&W film again (has used only color slide film with my SLRs). With my unmetered M4-2, I used a small digital hand-held incident meter. For my workflow - that meter, Leica Mandler lenses, Ilford Pan F for minimum grain, scanning the negatives with an LED-illuminated Nikon Coolscan, I determined that my best results overall came from: exposing the ISO 50 film at EI 80, developing 10% less than the normal ISO 50 Ilford box time, in Ilford DDX developer, using Ilford's recommended agitate-once-per-minute in a steel Nikor tank.

 

Those were thin negs by traditional (darkroom printing) standards - but scanners, with a more or less fixed exposure time, love thin negs. They can suck out shadow density variations almost invisible to the naked eye, and do not like high densities in highlights (blocked up and grainy). That was my strategy in exposure and development to accomodate my mechanical workflow - the specific performance and needs of my meter, my M4-2's actual (as opposed to marked) shutter speeds and apertures, my scanner (and quite possibly, my darkroom thermometer!). Others' MMV.

 

Now that I shoot film in 120 only, I use a different strategy. With older MF lenses, leaf shutters, a different incident meter, a flat-bed scanner that has diffused LED-backlit lighting, Kodak TMax 400 (100 when it was available) and Kodak HC-110 - I find Kodak's box speed and box times work exactly right. Except with a contrasty Zeiss 38mm Biogon - where I overexpose 1/2 stop and reduce development 10%. Fortunately, the Hassy SWC is self-contained, so all the 38mm shots go on their own roll of film.

 

The summary would be - start with the box speeds and development. Study the results. Decide if you like them, or if not, what you don't like. Adjust your exposure (for overall density) and development (for contrast and highlight density) until you get something you do like.

 

BTW - previously, I was not critiquing A miller's chosen strategy of exposing at 800 and developing for more than 800. Just the way he explained it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the whole zone system thing is nothing more than way to anchor a photographer with solid reference points

 

Exactly. A photographer has to start somewhere. Did I say differently? But an anchor that drags all over the ocean at random is not functioning correctly. ;)

 

Walk me through the difference between:

 

Meyerowitz - Once said "that the way he started learning the principles of exposure is that he went out in the street and shot, and looked at the results; if they were too dark, he would increase the exposure a little.  If the results were too bright, he would decrease the exposure a little.

 

and

 

Me: "The summary would be - start with the box speeds and development. Study the results. Decide if you like them, or if not, what you don't like. Adjust your exposure (for overall density) and development (for contrast and highlight density) until you get something you do like."

 

I do not advocate a strict approach to photography, or even photographic technique. "Strict" would be - "Shut up and do it the way Kodak says on the box." And I think my post clearly says anything but that - except as an anchor point from which to begin the journey.

 

Does 10% less developing time or using a half-stop higher or lower ISO make a difference? Yes. A small one - but if it makes scanning or printing easier and faster, that adds up, over 100s of photographs. Life is short - every little bit helps.

 

The SWC lens is quite contrasty - compared to the other Hassy lenses I was using, and my current Afga Tessar-clone. Even a 1956 "Super-Wide-Angle" produced more contrast (and more blocked highlights with the same exposure/development) than my much later T*-coated C 40, 50, 80, 120 S-Planar, and 250 (the 150 was almost as snappy as the 38). A lot of the 38's elements are cemented together, removing air/glass surfaces, and thus reflection points, and thus veiling flare/haziness.

 

A "brilliant" lens, in every sense of the word - but for consistency with other lenses, I give its pictures their own treatment when possible.

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some responses in bold below...

Exactly. A photographer has to start somewhere. Did I say differently? yes you did when you said "..., devoted to getting the perfect balance of exposure and contrast in a negative, for easier printing... "But an anchor that drags all over the ocean at random is not functioning correctly. ;)

 

 

 

Walk me through the difference between:

 

Meyerowitz's trial and error is the polar opposite of what you are advocating, which is evidenced by the fact that it took you more than a couple of sentences to express your thought.  You have chased your tail numerous times on this thread (with your quoted snippet just one go 'round), with little practical application or coherency.

 

 

and

 

 

I do not advocate a strict approach to photography, or even photographic technique.  Oh boy, can't undo what we've already seen here and elsewhere  on LUF.  If someone doesn't say something that is technically in line with your strict textbook view of the world you swiftly step in and whip out your belt....

 

 

 

"Strict" would be - "Shut up and do it the way Kodak says on the box." And I think my post clearly says anything but that - except as an anchor point from which to begin the journey.  Nice try, Adan...

 

Does 10% less developing time or using a half-stop higher or lower ISO make a difference? Yes. No.    A small one - but if it makes scanning or printing easier and faster, that adds up, over 100s of photographs. Life is short - every little bit helps.  No it doesn't.  Film is much more forgiving than that.  One doesn't need 45 years of experience to understand that.  Life is too short to quibble over 10%, that's for sure!!

 

The SWC lens is quite contrasty - compared to the other Hassy lenses I was using That's not what you said, now you are changing your statement.  , and my current Afga Tessar-clone.  What the hell does that artifact have to do with a blanket statement about the sublime 38mm biogon being "contrasty"?  Even a 1956 "Super-Wide-Angle" produced more contrast (and more blocked highlights with the same exposure/development) than my much later T*-coated C 40, 50, 80, 120 S-Planar, and 250 (the 150 was almost as snappy as the 38). A lot of the 38's elements are cemented together, removing air/glass surfaces, and thus reflection points, and thus veiling flare/haziness.  I use my 1958 Zeiss Biogon on my Linhof Technika Press 23 ALL the time and I get PLENTY of detail.  I'm not suffering from any "blocked highlights' problem.  And I have loads of photos to proof it.  Why you are having contrast issues I have no idea...

 

A "brilliant" lens, in every sense of the word - but for consistency with other lenses, I give its pictures their own treatment when possible.  More "Erwin Putts" fluff...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you quoted me, I won't respond point for point - I'd just be repeating your quotes.

 

I'll leave it to the readers to decide for themselves who was providing some calm, rational discussion, and who threw an emotional tizzy-fit. It was beneath you.

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...