Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,806   Posts: 1,581,412   Online: 1137
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66
  1. #41
    Pandysloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    You have to make that choice, if you simply underexpose and don't tell to processor what you want, they will try and fix your "mistake" and the result still won't be what you want.
    That makes sense, though when you say "print" do you mean the creation of negatives, or actual prints? Because I've only had the lab produce negatives for me, which I then scanned using a film scanner without making any exposure adjustments or having any brightness controls enabled, and they all came out too bright.

  2. #42
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,949
    Images
    226

    "Fine Art" style of exposure

    Quote Originally Posted by Pandysloo View Post
    That makes sense, though when you say "print" do you mean the creation of negatives, or actual prints? Because I've only had the lab produce negatives for me, which I then scanned using a film scanner without making any exposure adjustments or having any brightness controls enabled, and they all came out too bright.
    They mean going into a dark room that has an enlarger and "optically" printing... As in sending light through the film, through an enlarging lens, and adjusting light output/time to get a correct print on paper and develop that paper for best results.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #43
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandysloo View Post
    That makes sense, though when you say "print" do you mean the creation of negatives, or actual prints? Because I've only had the lab produce negatives for me, which I then scanned using a film scanner without making any exposure adjustments or having any brightness controls enabled, and they all came out too bright.
    I'm doing my best here to speak metaphorically with regard to the process because your question is good. Talking specifics about digital is off topic at APUG.

    What you have created is a proof, not a finished work. Proofs from negatives are simply used to decide what you want to do next, they are not meant for display or sharing.

    Metaphorically, you have not adjusted the second exposure yet. Whether using an enlarger or a digital processes you need to adjust to get the output you want.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,878
    Images
    23
    Pandysloo

    the negative is a film stencil
    the print is what is made when light is shone through it
    whether it is transferred to another media ( numerically )
    or chemically ( paper )
    the trick is to have fun making whichever one you decide you want to make ..

    john

  5. #45
    Pandysloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Metaphorically, you have not adjusted the second exposure yet. Whether using an enlarger or a digital processes you need to adjust to get the output you want.
    It was my understanding that my need to give the exposure a "second pass" (so to speak) was evidence of my incompetence. Meaning, that if I had exposed correctly, that no post adjustment would need to be made. But the correct way to go about is it capture as much tonality on the negative, then adjust exposure to taste when enlarging (or scanning), correct?

  6. #46
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandysloo View Post
    It was my understanding that my need to give the exposure a "second pass" (so to speak) was evidence of my incompetence. Meaning, that if I had exposed correctly, that no post adjustment would need to be made. But the correct way to go about is it capture as much tonality on the negative, then adjust exposure to taste when enlarging (or scanning), correct?
    There isn't one absolute answer here. There are a variety of ways to shoot negatives "correctly".

    For example TXP (Tri-X Professional 320) is a film with a very long toe. Some of us very much like the effect of the toe when shot at box speed, others prefer to give more exposure to get the subject matter up off the toe a ways; Both approaches are "correct".

    Both approaches can also be "standardized" for an individual. The adjustments required "to print" can become standard and applied automatically so that the proofs are much closer to what the individual expects on the first try.

    Still, a fine print almost always requires more adjustments.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  7. #47
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    I think basically that what everyone is saying is expose for the shadows to get detail in them, and then if you want to print them black you can do so. But if you underexpose you will never be able to get information from them.

  8. #48
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    I think basically that what everyone is saying is expose for the shadows to get detail in them, and then if you want to print them black you can do so. But if you underexpose you will never be able to get information from them.
    Actually I'm not trying to encourage extra exposure "just in case".

    If I'm going to use TXP's toe to my advantage I need to expose accurately, extra exposure takes my toe away.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  9. #49
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    Hi Pandysloo,

    The best advice I can give is to stop trying to do it in the camera. Prints happen in the darkroom. We have an old saying: " you can't print what isn't there" and it is very true. You can on the other hand choose not to print what is there by controlling your contrast and exposure during printing. Add dodging and burning to that and you are on your way. Prints that look like the one you referenced usually start out with the photographer striving to make the most expansive negative he can, and then printing it a little hard. When you have a negative that goes to ten you can do that, have your hard blacks, and still hold the highlights. If you printed the negative I've attached straight up it would look like mud, because in order to get the latitude to handle the contrast that's the way I made it. You could use this negative for welding goggles. If it hasn't been made that way there wouldn't have been a hope in hell for the stuff in the middle and on down. I chose where to have black fall, something I wouldn't have been able to do with a negative that had been truncated by under exposure. I hope that makes some sense.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails image.jpg  

  10. #50
    Pandysloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Some of us very much like the effect of the toe when shot at box speed
    Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a "toe?"

    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Prints that look like the one you referenced usually start out with the photographer striving to make the most expansive negative he can, and then printing it a little hard.
    Ah thank you; that makes sense. I plan on eventually getting into optical printing, but in the meantime I am using my school's film scanners.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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