With the prints I get from the photograph, I aslo get the negatives. I could try to do the "unmentionable" ;)
(I know Mark Barendt, x-nay on the igital-day)
I mentioned HDR because I like the way it looks like a drawing or painting. It seems to be unreal and over-colorfull.
I re-discovered analogue photography recently with my wife's old SLR. I've shot a 36 roll to get used to the manual setting. (written down every setting of every picture, for future refrence) I'm going to have this one developed and printed next week. The next roll will be an experimental one. Double exposure, out of focus, over exposure, under exposure. This thread gave me some idea's of what to do.
This is super easy with b&w film. Just use POTA developer. 20 stops of range. No muss no fuss.
So, as a starting developer, b&w is a good start? Mind you, right now I have no darkroom. I have a room that can be completely dark and it's got a decent size table. Is there some kind of 35mm developing starter kit?
OK you have 2 frames at different exposures how do you combine them to make an HDR image without resorting to digital techniques like scanning? If you use scanning and combining in photoshop I have found that I can do that with 1 single frame on color negative film. Just need to make 2 or more scan of the same negative at different exposure.
Yeah, get a patterson tank, some Kodak D76, some Ilford stop-bath, some Photograper's Formulary TF-5, some Kodak photo-flo.
Take a local course at a community college, get a steve anchell book, or ansel, or ralph lambrecht, read everything you can, it's not too tough.
That said, trying to replicate digital work with film is a fool's errand -in my opinion- and misses the essential qualities of film that people around here love so much.
Originally Posted by Steven L
Yes b&w is a very good place to start. It's very easy and you certainly don't need a darkroom. You might visit Freestyle Photo's website and look for a b&w starter kit- you probably find film and developer, stop, fix etc in one kit. If not then you can ask and they'll guide you through.
POTA is a "special" developer but it's not at all complicated to use. You can get it from Photographer's Formulary. If you want lots of dynamic range then look for the extended range version of POTA.
Modern films can record a long luminance range without even resorting to special procedures. The attached example is Delta 100 processed in plain old D76 1+1. It might be difficult to see in this crap scan, but there is detail even within the black windows and transom, as well as in the lightbulb. This scene had a 13 stop range.
For some reason when I tested this post, I needed to click on the attachment, and then click on it again after it opened. Strange. When it opens it is pixelated and then click it again and it looks fine. Apologies for the crap scan.
Film is high dynamic range, just as it is. You can't print it though, because the paper has a shorter range than film. If you want to experiment with the line drawing look, try whatever lith or microfilm emulsions are available. You might like solarisation, too.
Again, a lot of usefull information. About the DIY developing, I have to look into that and translate it into Dutch (and Dutch suppliers).
At dasBlute, my intention was not to replicate a digital work. My thoughts were that HDR was originated in analogue photography. After all, all you digitally would have to do is put multiple images with different exposures. No elaborate digital filter or technique.
Chan Tran has got a good question. How do you combine 2 negatives onto one print? Is it as easy as placing the two negatives on top of eachother?
Would the outcome of an analogue version of the digital HDR technique give the same painted/unnatural look?
You can most definitely print it. It just takes burning and dodging.
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh