How are the members of this forum to judge whether your negatives lack (or not) punch from a digitized version? The S***r adjusts (stretch/shrink) automagically the values present on the film to fit into 0-255. I don't dare go into details for fear my post would be deteted because referring to the D thing.
I recently under-developed some film (wrong published times) to a contrast index of 0.45, barely printable on grade 4.5. But my S***d files look quite good. As mentioned by other responders, what counts is what you can print under the enlarger.
Something else. From accumulated measurements with known good light meters, I found (and I'm not alone in that respect) that "sunny 16" should really be "sunny 11" in most cases. And, if significant open shadows are present (not dominant) in the picture, that becomes "sunny 8".
Shoot two films of the same type on the same day under the same settings and with the same camera. Develop one film yourself and send one film to a professional lab. Then check witch negatives you like best.
f/11 vs f/16 is not about deviating from box speed. Just take a known good meter and measure in reflected light a number of sunlit scenes. Especially, but not only, landscapes with foliage.Quote:
It is really rare for me to "need" more exposure than box speed.
Then he knows what he's doing, and no need to show us a digital version of his pictures. You gave better advice in your post #5 of this thread.Quote:
Simple for me, the OP said so.
The link suddenly worked.
I think the film looks normal. The light is a bit flat due to the overcast conditions.
The light metering has some emphasis on the sky, leading to some under-exposure of the ground. You can do a multi exposure scan to capture more detail and then bring up exposure a bit in post.
But I would say the film worked as it's supposed to.