even if he knew isopan f -i believe- had less to work with does that negate the fact he chose a developer to suit the exposure. he chose a developer with the right characteristics to keep the moon in check in order to remedy any exposure error/already tough to print values
Do we know for a fact that his shorter scale WOULD HAVE CAUSED the moon to blow out without d23
if not, and the film was capable of handling it
then it fit's very neatly
or did he choose d23 because it gave the exact curve on the whole of the negative he desired
turns out he didn't have enough shadow detail
would another developer/method with a bit more shadow detail -film speed- with near the same ability to tame highlights have made his use of intensifier that much more unnecessary
maybe he didn't do the graphing and plotting
should he have if he didn't
he did it based on experience?
if he chose a developer to possibly save important highlights and not because it gave the overall "look" he desired
maybe there isn't much to the whole "i wouldn't try that" negativity
maybe it's useful to know how to lessen overexposure through use of different developer/additions/methods
if it's good enough for him and we've all learned however much we know almost directly from him
maybe it's OK. maybe it's better to not have to deal with potential metering error that blocks certain areas of highlights because they're 4.4 stops off instead of 4, increased grain whether in shadows or highlgihts, increased printing times, less sharpness and/or whatever else is possible
sounds like you're settling instead of trying for optimization
which isn't what i'd expect
maybe my theory needs experimentation while doing nothing causes no increase of work ..except for all the fact checking, learning how to do the fact checking etc
will any burned in areas be grittier due to the already increased graininess in the negative?
in checking AA Negative he points out that while the straight line extends higher than we'd expect it to
blocking may result from extra xposure caused from scattering of light within the emulsion -less/more halation?
creating an "effective/false" shoulder of importance in actual photography
would this cause -if not outright loss of detail- a washed out look?
a cine site had a discussion on this but can't find it and not in my history
5-6 stops overexposure produces a "nuclear glow" caused by halation in the film
used in Casino
sure you know this
like the "effective" threshold of the film due to fb+f obscuring the tone otherwise produced by true threshold of the film ..but in reverse
what about a filter on the lens or light at certain times of day causing an unaccounted/incorrectly metered for speed change
would any or combination of these other variables push the exposure onto the actual shoulder of the film seeing as it's close already
if so, maybe a good reason to N- development
he's built in some wiggle room, right?
But i nthe end his zone 9 is still right at the shoulder
so anything above that gets compressed even more after his slight N- development
Normally when you burn in a normally exp/dev negative don't you burn in information that is higher than z9? maybe z10 and 11 information that certainly can't make it onto the paper without
so in that case would those normal zone 10s and 11s and 12s be uncompressed due to this straight line of info 4 stops above where'd you think it ends
but in burning in anything higher than z9 on this 4 stops overexposed negative means youre burning in compressed values when you do so
correct it if wrong
i'm just teaching myself here
Sun of sand,
Michael pretty much said what I would have in response to your posts.
Two thoughts that I might add though.
First, is that it is pretty obvious that Ansel tested his materials thoroughly, we have the books and such to prove it.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the instant Ansel figured out he had underexposed the Moonrise shoot, he understood exactly the challenges he would face and the options he had available. Peter did not have that same luxury so he asked for help.
Second, is the thought/fact that "perfect exposure placement" is a subjective thing that falls within a range defined by a specific photographer for a specific shot. There is no universal standard for best exposure.
This morning I have the great good luck to have a gorgeous Iris in the garden that has just unfolded. Got TMY and Portra 400 in the backs for my RB and playing with both from 400 down to 12 depending on the DOF. Both rolls will be developed normally. I have no doubt that every frame will be nicely printable clear out into the highlights
Acceptable overexposure has a lot to do with degree of enlargement. Generally the larger the format, the greater the overexposure range.
Sun of sand, burning in by itself does not compress tones. It simply prints the content/subject matter in the burned area of the print, darker.
The glowing look in my experience is typically caused by flare, spillover bouncing around coming from the bright areas affecting the darker areas. It reduces contrast by bringing the low tones up. It is dependent on both the tools in use (lenses, shades, studio lighting, scrims) and technique being applied (like shooting backlit vs front lit).
That glow/flare is simply a "characteristic" or "quality" of a given set of circumstances. It is neither good nor bad. Adding flare can be quite useful for certain types of photos, some portraiture for example. Reducing flare can be just as important in other shots.
Thanks for taking the time to test, it's going to help. I'm planning to adjust my future sensitometry tests in response to this thread, I'll add an exposure without a 6-stop filter in the well. To date, I've "never" seen a shoulder so I want to see it too.
sun of sand,
I agree halation is going to wreak havoc - good example you mention. But halation occurs on exposure, not development.
Highlights burning, would depend on the shoulder and I still don't think PeterB is even within 2-stops of the shoulder (a guess - must... see... sensitometry... I really must begin testing). But even if not shouldering... Burning highlights will certainly be less "convenient" because PeterB may not feel like giving 80 second burns (another guess). PeterB did the right thing for highlights, by developing a little less he will have shorter burn times in the highlights than if he had developed normal.
I also feel that switching to a speed-reducing developer - for the purpose of this shot - wouldn't have been wise. It would be the right approach ONLY IF the developer is already in his repertoire (If he already knows what he might get - like the shape of the curve and the quality of the grain of a different developer like Rodinol or Caffeinol) AND if that is the look that he knows would work for this shot. That's what I think Ansel Adams did for Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico - he already knew it would work for the shot.
Just a side point, I'm not looking for a magic bullet, I've already found a working combination - and "slight" overexposure is an important part of my magic bullet.
And the criteria for that judgement was _______________
Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
The graph is from Todd-Zakia, Photographic Sensitometry
The criteria for that judgement was __ folks who picked pictures of thousands of nerds __
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Well if you can make nerds look good, its gotta be good. ;)
Originally Posted by Bill Burk