Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,771   Posts: 1,484,292   Online: 1144
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    9

    Uncoated lens and BW film development

    Hi there,

    For those who use uncoated and coated lenses, do you develop your films the same way whatever lens you use or do you adjust your process when you use an uncoated lens (assuming that your standard lab process is for a coated lens)?

    Too, do you expose your film the same way (= same ISO) regardless the lens you use?

    Thanks for your input.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,798
    yes... same way.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Jersey Channel Islands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    312
    Yes same exposure and development, makes no difference

  4. #4
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,764
    Blog Entries
    1
    It can make a difference because of the light bouncing around between the uncoated elements.
    I expose a little, maybe 1/6 stop, less and develop a little more, about 10%, with the old lenses, of which I have a good many. Development is usually by inspection so I don't always record times.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,289
    I use the same exposure and development as for pictures with modern lenses. There is more flare in highlights and bright areas, but I just accept it as characteristic of the lens I used (old RR or anastigmat.) It does lend a bit of a different look, which is the point, after all. I don't see so much flare bleeding into the shadows that I adjust for it.

    Peter Gomena

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    I expose a little, maybe 1/6 stop, less and develop a little more
    Good Lord.... a sixth of a stop... I cannot even fathom a sixth of a stop shooting. I figure any entire image will encompass seven or eight stops from white to black so that would be something on the order of 1/40 or 1/50 of the total of an image--- we are getting into differences so miniscule I doubt if the average eye can tell the difference.
    * Just because your eyes are closed, doesn't mean the lights in the darkroom are off. *
    * When the film you put in the camera is worth more than the camera you put the film in... *
    * When I started using 8x10, it amazed me how many shots were close to the car. *

  7. #7
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,968
    Images
    148
    Modern films and uncoated lenses together with modern papers (or scans) need no different exposure.

    However in the past with older thick emulsion films it was quite different. Pre the early 1960's films speeds were half todays speeds for the same emulsion, dev times were much longer but the papers of the day had characteristics that matched the negatives. This along with uncoated lenses gave that old fashioned feel.

    Ian

  8. #8
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,992
    Images
    280
    I notice a higher film speed with older lenses. Probably due to flare. If I shoot with my Voigtlander Nokton on the Leica, or my Hasselblad, I shoot Tri-X at 200. When I use the Summitar on the Leica, I get a full EI 400 out of Tri-X and in my prints I get a similar amount of shadow detail this way. I'm not sure that this is scientifically correct, but it sure helps for consistency from print to print.

    Naturally I also develop the Summitar negatives longer, due to lower contrast overall and to compensate for the exposure.

    - Thomas
    "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

  9. #9
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,729
    Images
    336
    No change, or it negates the reason for using an uncoated lens in the first place.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I notice a higher film speed with older lenses. Probably due to flare. If I shoot with my Voigtlander Nokton on the Leica, or my Hasselblad, I shoot Tri-X at 200. When I use the Summitar on the Leica, I get a full EI 400 out of Tri-X and in my prints I get a similar amount of shadow detail this way. I'm not sure that this is scientifically correct, but it sure helps for consistency from print to print.

    Naturally I also develop the Summitar negatives longer, due to lower contrast overall and to compensate for the exposure.
    - Thomas
    Thomas, I suspect that the flare from the uncoated lens has the effect of pre-flashing your film. The extra light biases the shadow-exposure upwards a little, lifting the shadows out of the toe, which in effect boosts speed.

    Mark Overton

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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