Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,940   Posts: 1,557,425   Online: 903
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,331
    Images
    148
    It's all in the effective EI (Film speed) and dev time you use. Remember that the ASA/BS speeds were doubled in the early 60's these along with the German DIN speed make up our current ISO speeds.

    Because I've done my own Zone system tests I foundn that to get good shadow tones I needed to use most films (Agfa excepted) at half box speed in Rodinal or Xtol (D76/ID-11 would be no different). My main films were APX100 at box speed and Tmax100 @ 50EI andd that actually matched the small print in Kodaks recommendations for best tonal range.

    We can't match 30's/40's tonality exactly with modern films (& papers) and lenses because emulsions have changed quite significantly and also they were using uncoated lenses. I addition papers have changed as well.

    Over the past two decades I've seen two possibly 3, major exhibitions of Kertesz, one at the Barbican in London was original contemporary prints small, jewel like and exquisite - made around the time he shot the images, another was of modern prints off the same negatives but while good they were lacking, the modern papers used didn't match the negatives.

    Ian

  2. #12
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    I haven't done this for daytime situations, but about half my "Haarlem by Night" photo series has been shot with over-exposure and under-development using TriX and D76. I usually bracket (35mm and stationary subjects like buildings), but think that most of the shots work best at some 1-2 stops overexposure, and development curbed by about 25-40%, probably with a preference for more overexposure (2stops) and more under development 40%. I wouldn't hesitate to reduce to 50% if properly over-exposed and if the contrast of the scene needed it, based on my admittedly somewhat limited experience up to now. I have measured contrasts of up to 12 EV, a shot of which I show here printed on Kentmere Fineprint VC with a partial sepia toning. Notice even the light (some EV14) has detail, while the darkest parts were closer to EV 2-3). Of course, the light needed burning in, but not excessively. It was far better printable than if I hadn't done this. Extra bonus of the under development is a finer grain.

    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  3. #13
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,055
    Images
    6
    I saw Kertez's show on people reading books. The old prints had a special quality that I couldn't put my finger on and now it starting to click and make some sense. I also think old school papers were mostly graded papers and didn't have any florescent brighteners. Thomas also enlightened me on lenses and anti-halation properties of old film.

  4. #14
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    You can still use old lenses. They are mostly cheap and nobody respects them (unless you get into proper soft focus). I often use an old uncoated triplet (trioplan) on my speed graphic. I got a 150mm zeiss tessar with a pre-war speed graphic that I paid $100 total for. I bought a monster 400mm tessar for an 8x10 or bigger camera for $100. Old lenses aren't magic bullets, but there have been major changes in lenses since WWII and the differences can be noticeable if you've got a handle on the other challenges of film. Old lenses aren't Lomo either; they are just of slightly different character.

  5. #15
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,331
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco B View Post
    I haven't done this for daytime situations, but about half my "Haarlem by Night" photo series has been shot with over-exposure and under-development using TriX and D76.
    The mistake is that you think in terms of over exposure and undervelopment when in fact you've given the correct exposure and development for the situation.

    It's about realising that the effective EI and also the development time needs to change to suit lighting/contrast conditions and in your example recopticity.

    Ian

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    It is for sure true that lenses were different back then. I often use a 50mm Summitar f/2 lens, and the shadows are a lot more open than with a modern Nokton, for example.
    I have only one Leica left out of my kit, a 1956 M3 with both a Zeiss 50/2 Planar and 50/2 collapsable Summicron. The former negates the flare I get with the latter, the Summicron imparting a much lower contrast scene than the Zeiss.

    If I were going with that look, the lens would be the first place I would start...
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  7. #17
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    The mistake is that you think in terms of over exposure and undervelopment when in fact you've given the correct exposure and development for the situation.
    It's about realising that the effective EI and also the development time needs to change to suit lighting/contrast conditions and in your example recopticity.

    Ian
    Ian, you are fully right!

    It took me a long time to realize these things, and I still grapple with it at times (of course, Ralph Lambrecht's "Way Beyond Monochrome" book is a big eye-opener and help). Talking about "over-exposure" and "under-development" is only useful in the context of needing to correct, and using, auto-metering options on cameras set to a fixed film ISO. Options only really suitable for "average" conditions. But it is probably better to leave out the "over-" and "under-" completely in this discussion...
    Last edited by Marco B; 03-06-2012 at 02:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  8. #18
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,611
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by mfohl View Post
    I normally shoot Tri-X with an EI of 250, and I now develop in D-76 mixed one to one with water (now that my Microdol-X is no longer available). I develop for about 10 minutes at 68-70 degrees. And I'm going to expose at 125, which should give me better shadow density. Does anybody have any experience or suggestions about development times? I'm thinking maybe a 25-30% reduction?
    I think you are on the right track. I generally give an extra stop of exposure and reduce development by 25%. It works for me but I use Ilford HP5+ rated at EI 200.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  9. #19
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,069
    Images
    1
    I've had decent success doing the "over-expose, under-develop" thing in contrasty situation that did pretty well in showing good shadow detail. Disclaimer: most of this was with the idea of scanning which I do with my negs on a Nikon 9000.

    Here's two search results/sets on Flickr where you can see what came of it. Both very bright sunny days.

    Film, camera, lens, developer, temps and times in the title descriptions:

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=38698047@N00&q=Half

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich815...7594171439870/

    This one shot worked out pretty well too:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/5642637484
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cardigan, West Wales
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    90
    To combine two opinions in this thread I am reminded of a photographer I greatly admire - James Ravilious - who almost exclusively, I think, downrated film and compensated development for softer open shadows in his images, (which I heard weren't necessarily straight forward to print) along with a preference for the older less contrasty Leica lenses. His resulting pictures of rural Devon life, in particular, demonstrate (in many peoples opinion) amongst other things a magical way of opening up the light falling on a scene. You can use developers to tame contrast, but I would suggest that the right lenses play a large part in the first place: some of my favourites include quite humble examples such as the Schneider Xenon and Reomars on the Kodak Retinas and Retinettes, 50mm Leica Elmars and Summitars and many medium format lenses from the mid 1950's to 1960's.
    I find that talking to my lenses and coaxing them to show me their best can help alot.
    Regards, Mark Walker.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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