Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,733   Posts: 1,515,293   Online: 900
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,299
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    The other 5% is "Do I have the filter with me or did I forget it at home?"
    Haha.. Exactly!! Or you left the step up ring at home!

  2. #22
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,881
    Images
    6
    I carry in my bag a Cokin red, green, linear polarizer, adaptor rings and the holder. When I shoot landscapes, I use the red or the polarizer when I want to darken the sky. Saves burning in the sky in the darkroom sometimes. I shoot mostly BW film.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    Haha.. Exactly!! Or you left the step up ring at home!
    ... or brought the wrong size step-up ring. After doing that once I just started buying filters in the correct sizes and not trying to economize by using step-up rings.

  4. #24
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    549
    Images
    19
    Allright, I put together a little test, based on the tips and ideas in this thread.

    I just got my 100 ft Fomapan 100 bulk film loaded and ready and thought i's give it a go with a limited film-strip, to check the following:
    - How various filters (the ones that I own anyway) influence the sky (with this film)
    - Try HC-110 with Fomapan 100 (something that is "not recommended" for more reasons I care to remember)
    - Try out n+2 development with said film, to see how it fared.

    I metered, to the best of my ability, the darkest parts of the sky to zone III, the highlights were then at zone V (I used my Canon 1v's spot-meter) and took a photo without filter.
    Metered again with a Hoya #25 red filter on and took another photo.
    Then I mounted my Polarization filter on-top of my red filter, metered again and took another photo.

    For development I googled around and found 8 minutes at EI 100 for foma in HC-110 dilution H to be a good starting point. (I've never used HC-110 with Fomapan 100 before).
    I then added 25% to that time, to get to a theoretical n+1 development.
    Then I added another 25% to that time to get to n+2 development. (12,5 minutes)
    (This was a guestimate, I have no idea of it was correct, because I don't own a desiometer)

    The reason why I shot this for a n+2 development, was that I wanted to keep the darkest parts of the sky and the clouds _dark_ and use the development process to pull up the highlights, as per the zone system (or the maybe the bit simplified one that I use).

    I then developed the film for 12 minutes 30 seconds, 1 minute continuous agitation, then 1 gentle agitation at 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 minutes (and a light "cheers" at 12 minutes), making sure to not agitate too hard or too much, but let the highlights get a batch of fresh developer now and then.

    The result:

    Filter effect:
    Wow!
    You can clearly see the difference between the unfiltered shot, to the #25 red filter shot, but look at the red + pola!
    Ansel Adams go home, haha :P

    Fomapan 100 in HC-110:
    What's the problem? The negatives look good and if you keep you fat fingers (and fat squeegees) away from it while wet, there is no problem!
    Now, this was a "sky-test" alone, I have yet to test to see how trees and water will fare when I use this technique, most likely I'll have to stash a square ND filter on somewhere, to prevent the land part of the image to go too dark on me.

    N+2 development with Fomapan 100:
    I guess I got lucky, the negatives look very nice to my eye, scans well, not too thick, not too thin, will print well in the darkroom.
    N+2 was maybe a bit much though, because the negatives (at least from my grain enhancing Nikon-scanner) are a bit grainy in 35mm. I need to print some in the dark-room to get a proper impression.

    Conclusion:


    If I was to do it again, I would place the shadow part of the clouds at around zone IV, so that the whites were at VI (may vary depending on conditions off course) and then do a n+1 development instead. (it can go really stark, very fast).
    Result scan of the negative frames side by side as they appear on the negative is attached (photo darkened to where I typically do it when I make a proof-sheet in the dark room), this is a proof scan, scanned trough my negative sleeve, so never-mind the dust specs, they are on the outside of the neg-sleeve. Also, the neg-leader shows some unevenness in brightness, probably due to said sleeve.

    Also attached, a proper scan from the #25 filter + pola filter, made on my Nikon V.

    I hope you enjoyed this totally unscientific test as much as I did ^^
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Foma_100_N+2_HC-110_Dil_H_12m_30s7-Edit.jpg   Foma100_red_pola_n+2_dev_hc-110_h_12m_30_s.jpg  
    Last edited by Helinophoto; 09-20-2012 at 07:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  5. #25
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,773
    I have filters on pretty much all the time. I stick to the yellow and orange filters the most, but I always carry a filter pouch with me that has a red filter, a green (light and dark), a polarizer, and a nd.3 just in case.

  6. #26
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Helinophoto View Post
    Allright, I put together a little test, based on the tips and ideas in this thread.

    I just got my 100 ft Fomapan 100 bulk film loaded and ready and thought i's give it a go with a limited film-strip, to check the following:
    - How various filters (the ones that I own anyway) influence the sky (with this film)
    - Try HC-110 with Fomapan 100 (something that is "not recommended" for more reasons I care to remember)
    - Try out n+2 development with said film, to see how it fared.

    I metered, to the best of my ability, the darkest parts of the sky to zone III, the highlights were then at zone V (I used my Canon 1v's spot-meter) and took a photo without filter.
    Metered again with a Hoya #25 red filter on and took another photo.
    Then I mounted my Polarization filter on-top of my red filter, metered again and took another photo.

    For development I googled around and found 8 minutes at EI 100 for foma in HC-110 dilution H to be a good starting point. (I've never used HC-110 with Fomapan 100 before).
    I then added 25% to that time, to get to a theoretical n+1 development.
    Then I added another 25% to that time to get to n+2 development. (12,5 minutes)
    (This was a guestimate, I have no idea of it was correct, because I don't own a desiometer)

    The reason why I shot this for a n+2 development, was that I wanted to keep the darkest parts of the sky and the clouds _dark_ and use the development process to pull up the highlights, as per the zone system (or the maybe the bit simplified one that I use).

    I then developed the film for 12 minutes 30 seconds, 1 minute continuous agitation, then 1 gentle agitation at 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 minutes (and a light "cheers" at 12 minutes), making sure to not agitate too hard or too much, but let the highlights get a batch of fresh developer now and then.

    The result:

    Filter effect:
    Wow!
    You can clearly see the difference between the unfiltered shot, to the #25 red filter shot, but look at the red + pola!
    Ansel Adams go home, haha :P

    Fomapan 100 in HC-110:
    What's the problem? The negatives look good and if you keep you fat fingers (and fat squeegees) away from it while wet, there is no problem!
    Now, this was a "sky-test" alone, I have yet to test to see how trees and water will fare when I use this technique, most likely I'll have to stash a square ND filter on somewhere, to prevent the land part of the image to go too dark on me.

    N+2 development with Fomapan 100:
    I guess I got lucky, the negatives look very nice to my eye, scans well, not too thick, not too thin, will print well in the darkroom.
    N+2 was maybe a bit much though, because the negatives (at least from my grain enhancing Nikon-scanner) are a bit grainy in 35mm. I need to print some in the dark-room to get a proper impression.

    Conclusion:


    If I was to do it again, I would place the shadow part of the clouds at around zone IV, so that the whites were at VI (may vary depending on conditions off course) and then do a n+1 development instead. (it can go really stark, very fast).
    Result scan of the negative frames side by side as they appear on the negative is attached (photo darkened to where I typically do it when I make a proof-sheet in the dark room), this is a proof scan, scanned trough my negative sleeve, so never-mind the dust specs, they are on the outside of the neg-sleeve. Also, the neg-leader shows some unevenness in brightness, probably due to said sleeve.

    Also attached, a proper scan from the #25 filter + pola filter, made on my Nikon V.

    I hope you enjoyed this totally unscientific test as much as I did ^^
    It seems way too dramatic to me.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  7. #27
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    A red and polarizer would be even greater effect but you lose too much shadow detail.
    Indeed. Landscape shadows, especially distant ones, in a scene with a gorgeously blue sky (like never in Ireland) are surprisingly blue. Red, even an orange filter can be such a shadow killer... ND grad can be as potent, but without that danger (unless you put it upside down). Polariser is OK for not-too-wide a field of view, or strange tone changes will occur.

    Personally, I like a yellow, maybe #11 yellow-green when I have trees or heavy foliage to lighten up, sometimes orange, and extra patience when burning under the enlarger. My earlier prints had much red #25 and the shadows just won't wake up, including even shaded parts of clouds, which gives them a rather grainy and gritty look. Unless that is what one is looking for...
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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