"Fine Art" style of exposure

[markbarendt]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a "toe?"

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

The area where the low end of the curve turns upward, by the #1, is the toe; this is the dark end of the photo. At the top of the curve where it flattens, about 3.5-4, is the shoulder; the highlight end of the scale.

Compare that to Kodak TXP. Page 14.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf

TXP has a much longer toe and little if any shoulder. This is called an upswept curve.

The shape of the curve changes how the photo prints. Each film has a unique curve and different developers and other changes can also change the shape of the curve as can time and other changes.

(One is not "better" than the other, they are simply different tools. Both of these films are truly special and beloved by many.)

[JBrunner]

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

The area where the low end of the curve turns upward, by the #1, is the toe; this is the dark end of the photo. At the top of the curve where it flattens, about 3.5-4, is the shoulder; the highlight end of the scale.

Compare that to Kodak TXP. Page 14.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf

TXP has a much longer toe and little if any shoulder. This is called an upswept curve.

The shape of the curve changes how the photo prints. Each film has a unique curve and different developers and other changes can also change the shape of the curve as can time and other changes.

(One is not "better" than the other, they are simply different tools. Both of these films are truly special and beloved by many.)

Pandysloo,

The actual real world curve is a result of the combination of exposure and developing, and changing these curves is something accomplished photographers do all the time. You are changing the curve of your film when you under expose it. The charts are very good ways to compare the exposure performance of one emulsion to another. A place to start. Pick one emulsion and learn how it performs under many combinations of exposure and developing. Even if you aren't developing your own film yet you can tell them to pull it or push it one or more stops. Once that is mastered you will be amazed how much you can do with just that one film.

[markbarendt]

Pandysloo,

The actual real world curve is a result of the combination of exposure and developing, and changing these curves is something accomplished photographers do all the time. You are changing the curve of your film when you under expose it. The charts are very good ways to compare the exposure performance of one emulsion to another. A place to start. Pick one emulsion and learn how it performs under many combinations of exposure and developing. Once that is done you will be amazed how much you can do with just that one film.

Which is pretty much what I was leading to in post 46.

[StoneNYC]

Pandysloo,

The actual real world curve is a result of the combination of exposure and developing, and changing these curves is something accomplished photographers do all the time. You are changing the curve of your film when you under expose it. The charts are very good ways to compare the exposure performance of one emulsion to another. A place to start. Pick one emulsion and learn how it performs under many combinations of exposure and developing. Once that is done you will be amazed how much you can do with just that one film.

I have to say that's one thing I've never agreed on (the bit about it being a good representation) I find them all very confusing and I know others see them so simply but my brain and charts never seem to be friends. All the cannon lenses have a chart too but I don't understand those either, nor these ones, to me a better example would be some kind of standardized grey scale "zone system" style from light to dark, it's visual and obvious to anyone, oh this ones grey is better here compared to this where it becomes black sooner in this one.




~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

[pawlowski6132]

Do NOT get wrapped up in all that stuff (unless you want to.) Before you know it, you're photography will be a science project. You can easily start down that path but it's a very slippery slope. The next thing you know, you will spend all your time evaluating the characteristic curves of film, reading up on densitometry, testing film and paper combinations, etc, etc.

To start, just learn how to expose an average negative. Prolly over expose 1/2 to 1/3 of a stop and develop normally. If your highlights (where you want detail) are getting blown out, reduce your development time in 10% increments.

Then, you can take that negative and post process (photoshop or in the darkroom) until your hearts content; make multiple versions, using different paper types, printing methods, etc. I don't recommend trying to get a negative to match a certain paper and printing style. Today you may want to Lith print the negative and five years from now, you may want to make a digital negative from your original and make a Kallitype print.

The key is to get as much information in your negative TODAY.

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

The area where the low end of the curve turns upward, by the #1, is the toe; this is the dark end of the photo. At the top of the curve where it flattens, about 3.5-4, is the shoulder; the highlight end of the scale.

Compare that to Kodak TXP. Page 14.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf

TXP has a much longer toe and little if any shoulder. This is called an upswept curve.

The shape of the curve changes how the photo prints. Each film has a unique curve and different developers and other changes can also change the shape of the curve as can time and other changes.

(One is not "better" than the other, they are simply different tools. Both of these films are truly special and beloved by many.)

[markbarendt]

Do NOT get wrapped up in all that stuff (unless you want to.) Before you know it, you're photography will be a science project. You can easily start down that path but it's a very slippery slope. The next thing you know, you will spend all your time evaluating the characteristic curves of film, reading up on densitometry, testing film and paper combinations, etc, etc.

To start, just learn how to expose an average negative. Prolly over expose 1/2 to 1/3 of a stop and develop normally. If your highlights (where you want detail) are getting blown out, reduce your development time in 10% increments.

Then, you can take that negative and post process (photoshop or in the darkroom) until your hearts content; make multiple versions, using different paper types, printing methods, etc. I don't recommend trying to get a negative to match a certain paper and printing style. Today you may want to Lith print the negative and five years from now, you may want to make a digital negative from your original and make a Kallitype print.

The key is to get as much information in your negative TODAY.

Extra exposure isn't a magic bullet, its just one way to do things.

If exposure is accurate, there is no real need and minimizing exposure has its pluses. Faster shutter speed, smaller aperture, minimizing grain; all good things are they not?

[Pandysloo]

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.

[pawlowski6132]

Extra exposure isn't a magic bullet, its just one way to do things.

If exposure is accurate, there is no real need and minimizing exposure has its pluses. Faster shutter speed, smaller aperture, minimizing grain; all good things are they not?

there is no absolute accurate exposure. The best exposure is the one that gives you what you want in the negative. I would trade having all the details I can get in a negative for slower shutter speed and larger apertures all day. I think most people would. Not sure what grain size has to do with anything.

[pawlowski6132]

Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.

You would control the highlights in the development process.

[JBrunner]

Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.

If your coming from video you are worrying about the highlights too much. Compared to video its almost impossible blow the highlights on film.