Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,531   Posts: 1,572,566   Online: 1163
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,529
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Just a thought David, while I do agree that the total density will be lower with less exposure, that doesn't necessarily mean a change to the film curve is needed.

    I think what Kodak is essentially saying is that for typical use either EI 400 or 800 there will normally be plenty of info to make virtually identical prints of typical scenes.

    Yes, surely for high contrast scenes or tightly spot metered work, there very well could be impacts on the print but for most people it won't normally matter.
    And Mark Barendt recently demonstrated that in this test, where the result showed considerable latitude in Exposure Index - where all the shots fell on the straight line - so they all printed on the same grade and all looked the same.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum57/1...ml#post1415457

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    636
    Of course the latitude is really only to overexposure. Once something is off the bottom it is gone, though it may not be an issue for a particular picture that doesn't have important shadow detail that far down.

    I do understand Kodak's pushing recommendation and it makes sense since increasing the development time doesn't recover the lost shadow detail.

  3. #13
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree View Post
    Of course the latitude is really only to overexposure. Once something is off the bottom it is gone, though it may not be an issue for a particular picture that doesn't have important shadow detail that far down.

    I do understand Kodak's pushing recommendation and it makes sense since increasing the development time doesn't recover the lost shadow detail.
    Actually Mark there can be room both under and over, it fully depends on the scene and metering techniques.

    This morning I extended the test Bill linked to above (indirectly, same dog but different lighting/scene) with a shot at the tail of another roll.

    That shot proved for me, for Delta 400 in DD-X at least, the point you make in your last sentence. I got nice detail where I wanted it from a frame incident metered and shot at 1600 but developed for EI 500. I'm going to try a frame or two shot at 3200 and developed at 500 on the next roll.

    The camera meter though, center weighted and matrix, in my F5 was being seriously fooled by the white background telling me I'd be 2-stops over exposed, had I followed the camera's lead the shot would have lost the detail I wanted. (Good spot metering and zoning techniques would have worked fine too, they would simply have taken a bit more thought.)
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #14
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,309
    Well, the straight line assumes that ALL is within that straight line. I believe that at box speed that is on the cusp and that any further reduction in exposure BEGINS (not necessarily perceptive to most) to reduce the shadow detail's presence on that straight line. I would begin to give ever so slightly more development with an EI 200 for TMX.

  5. #15
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    David I'll definately grant that the application of these principles needs to fit the individual user and that as exposure is reduced there is less and less latitude at the shadow end of the scale.

    One point I'm trying to make though is that normally I don't print clear to the toe. I don't think I'm odd in this respect either. Yes, a certain number of us shoot tight enough to the toe or long enough scale subjects that a small change in EI might really matter. It is obvious from my tests that I'm not in that group.

    A second point that I want to make, and that Mark Crabtree also made above, is basically summed up in the old axiom "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"; development changes have very little effect on film sensitivity and shadow detail; it's almost all about the exposure when we are placing subject matter down close to the toe. Changing your development from 100 style to 200 style is about fitting the scene to the paper not getting more shadow detail.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  6. #16
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree View Post
    Of course the latitude is really only to overexposure. Once something is off the bottom it is gone, though it may not be an issue for a particular picture that doesn't have important shadow detail that far down.

    I do understand Kodak's pushing recommendation and it makes sense since increasing the development time doesn't recover the lost shadow detail.
    As the subject brightness range increases (i.e., more of the gray scale is used at both ends), the film's latitude for any exposure error decreases. Information on the negative can be lost at either end of the gray scale with too much error in the chosen exposure.
    Last edited by CPorter; 11-09-2012 at 06:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17
    Joerg Bergs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    near cologne, germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    130
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Does anyone out there find that the 100 requires slightly more (+10% or so) development time than for the 400? This perplexes me, as slower film usually requires less development.
    I develop the tmax 100 and 400 in xtol. At a 1+1 dillution the tmx need 11 minutes, the tmy2 9,5 minutes. So the 100 requires more time for the same beta.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg Bergs View Post
    I develop the tmax 100 and 400 in xtol. At a 1+1 dillution the tmx need 11 minutes, the tmy2 9,5 minutes. So the 100 requires more time for the same beta.
    I like TMX, but don't use either that or TMY much any more. When I did use them I found the same thing. It is not all that likely that Kodak made a mistake on this. There were some erroneous times given, but not usually on something as basic as this.

    I think it is more likely that the very different highlight contrast of the two films is the reason. I shoot a fair bit in full sun and in available indoor light. In those sorts of high contrast situations I think the very slight tapering of the highlights with TMX compared to the straight line (or sometimes slightly upswept) highlight curve with TMY means you can give more development with TMX (or need to give less with TMY, depending on how you want to look at it).

  9. #19
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,705
    Images
    1
    my results, your may be different
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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