Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,727   Posts: 1,515,165   Online: 995
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Could it be that the times for HP5+ pushed to 1600 in DDX is another Ilford time that is seriously under?
    At one time I thought that to be true.

    With a fair bit more experience, in metering and printing, I now find that Ilford's numbers work well in most cases.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #12
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,205
    Ditto, you have to realize that negative film speeds are really, oftentimes, too optimized, much like miles per gallon hype. - David Lyga

  3. #13
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    It's more like the exposure is already below the safety factor. Any sloppiness in exposure will just push the exposure further to the left reducing the negative density range further. And "pushing" film is usually done in the most extreme of situations. The scene luminance range is frequently either very flat or very contrasty. When I worked in a lab, we would see shoots of musicians on stage and the negatives were almost always clear except for the blown out hair light.

    The way pushing for speed is supposed to work is that with under exposure, the shadows shift down into the toe of the film curve. This reduces the film density range. The film is then pushed to increase the film gradient increasing what's left of the density range. The rule of thumb for pushing for speed is that the "film speed" increases 1/3 stop per stop of contrast.

    Sloppy exposure, difficult subject luminance ranges, and willingness to accept loss of image quality are the biggest factors to whether pushing for speed is successful or not.

  4. #14
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,153
    Images
    288
    It's probably best to try to solve the problem the OP has asked to solve.

    The problem obviously doesn't come from underexposing film, since prints from similarly underexposed film in the past have been satisfactory.
    The problem is that all of a sudden the prints are no longer good, from the same type of negative the OP has used before.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #15
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    How can we be certain they are similarly under exposed? Even th OP says "When I expose it right." I believe the whole errors in exposure and variations in the luminance range can explain his varying results. So, unless he's using old developer or not mixing it correctly, my suggestion is don't over rate the film, and if you do, expect certain percentage of failed negatives.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    13
    Thomas, Stephen is right in that the negatives I am trying to print from are underexposed. I'll obviously try and expose better in future, but I do like some of the pictures and I'm trying to get what I can from them. I guess in retrospect my problem is that even at grade 5 the midtones are very low when I expose enough to get proper blacks. My instinct was to try split-filter printing, with grade 5 to get the blacks and then burning with grade 0 to put the midtones somewhere nice, but everything's already too dark with just the grade 5 exposure.

    FWIW I mix fresh developer every session, and I use that tetenal stuff to stop the concentrate going off in the interim. I opened the bottle I a month ago max, but the liquid is still the right colour. My paper is fresh too, it's not fogged or anything.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    It's probably best to try to solve the problem the OP has asked to solve.

    The problem obviously doesn't come from underexposing film, since prints from similarly underexposed film in the past have been satisfactory.
    The problem is that all of a sudden the prints are no longer good, from the same type of negative the OP has used before.
    I have re-read the OP's thread and he seems to say that when he properly exposes he get negs that will print at grades 3/3.5 so I am not sure that his problem is other than underexposed negs on this occasion rather than poor printing and/or faulty chemicals

    However we are doing what we often collectively do - me included - which is to try and solve an OP's problem when we need to find out exactly what he means


    pentaxuser

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,828
    Sorry, additional posts had arrived before I could post. At least now we know the issue

    pentaxuser

  9. #19
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Gbenson,

    One thing you might try is printing for nice blacks then bleaching the areas you want to brighten.

    It is a technique I've seen done well, and played with a bit, but I have not mastered it.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #20
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Intensifying the negatives is another way to go.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin