Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,705   Posts: 1,482,753   Online: 1022
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,526
    I have recently purchased some delta 3200 expired in 2008, now ive heard 5 years is ancient for high speed films, and to make matters worse this film was not cold stored.
    And yet you still bought it?!
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 07-03-2013 at 11:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  2. #22
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,953
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I will disagree a bit Polyglot about shooting D3200 @ 400 making the negative low contrast.

    First, shooting at 400 or 3200 is just a placement choice, contrast is controlled by the development time and temp.
    This is true but not the whole story: if you shoot a contrasty scene at 400 and develop normally (for 3200), the highlights will be crimped by the shoulder of the film and you will only get good contrast in the shadows & midtones, maybe up to about Zone VI. The density that the brightest highlights should be at (to maintain a linear response) is past the film's D-max. The end result is that the print looks duller because of the reduced highlight contrast; it will lack sparkle and is a similar look to using a compensating developer.

    In order to prevent the highlight destruction, one typically reduces development when over-exposing in order to ensure that you don't get much of your image up on the film's shoulder and therefore mushed. The global reduction in contrast (which can be rectified by printing a grade or two harder) is preferable (for most people) to keeping full shadow/midtone contrast and losing most of the highlight contrast through what is effectively an overdevelopment for that EI.

    Of course if you shoot a scene of little dynamic range (4 stops), there will be no problem with the extra development. But such a narrow scene doesn't need the extra exposure either...

    Anyway, I stand by my original suggestion of shooting at 800-1200 and developing for 1600. D3200 looks foggier than it really is, if that makes sense. There's an image hiding in there somewhere!

  3. #23
    jensenhallstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    This is true but not the whole story: if you shoot a contrasty scene at 400 and develop normally (for 3200), the highlights will be crimped by the shoulder of the film and you will only get good contrast in the shadows & midtones, maybe up to about Zone VI. The density that the brightest highlights should be at (to maintain a linear response) is past the film's D-max. The end result is that the print looks duller because of the reduced highlight contrast; it will lack sparkle and is a similar look to using a compensating developer.

    In order to prevent the highlight destruction, one typically reduces development when over-exposing in order to ensure that you don't get much of your image up on the film's shoulder and therefore mushed. The global reduction in contrast (which can be rectified by printing a grade or two harder) is preferable (for most people) to keeping full shadow/midtone contrast and losing most of the highlight contrast through what is effectively an overdevelopment for that EI.

    Of course if you shoot a scene of little dynamic range (4 stops), there will be no problem with the extra development. But such a narrow scene doesn't need the extra exposure either...

    Anyway, I stand by my original suggestion of shooting at 800-1200 and developing for 1600. D3200 looks foggier than it really is, if that makes sense. There's an image hiding in there somewhere!
    I thank you for your effort in response but may i ask if you could help me understand what you are saying by telling me what the shoulder of the film is, d-max and well quite frankly even then i would still be confused.

  4. #24
    jensenhallstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    And yet you still bought it?!
    I like saving money.. It was only 3 dollars a roll.

  5. #25
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,953
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by jensenhallstrom View Post
    I thank you for your effort in response but may i ask if you could help me understand what you are saying by telling me what the shoulder of the film is, d-max and well quite frankly even then i would still be confused.
    You're going to have to get a book because there's way more that needs to be explained than I could possibly do justice to in a forum post. If you want to read about the technical side of photography, I strongly recommend getting Way Beyond Monochrome and reading through it, or at least using it as a reference.

    Don't worry about it for now though. Get a stash of relatively fresh film and shoot it normally (box speed, normal development, etc) until you've done a couple tens of rolls. All this sensitometry crap, pushing, pulling, etc can wait. It's just a confusion at this point.

  6. #26
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,133
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by jensenhallstrom View Post
    I like saving money.. It was only 3 dollars a roll.
    I had to learn the hard way that ... Saving money by buying old film usually costs you more in the end.

    And it's only $5/120 roll at B&H so it's not that expensive ...

    Good luck and welcome to APUG


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #27
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Just shoot the film @ 800, develop for 1600. Ignore any of the naysaying.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #28
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,290
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    This is true but not the whole story: ...
    Your right that its not the whole story and neither is your response. The OP is just getting a first exposure to these concepts, might be an idea to leave the special case stuff aside for a moment especially since we are dealing with film here that is less than perfect.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  9. #29
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,290
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Just shoot the film @ 800, develop for 1600. Ignore any of the naysaying.
    This isn't bad advice Jensen, sometimes you just gotta ignore us and go shooting.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  10. #30
    K-G
    K-G is offline
    K-G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    G÷teborg , Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    279
    I can only agree with what has been said about developing for one ISO-step higher than you expose. If you can get hold of Ilfords own developer DD-X , then it's the very best.
    Don't be discouraged by the base fog level . As polyglot writes , it looks far worse than it is. Put the film in an enlarger and start printing and you are up for a positive surprise.
    Good luck !

    Karl-Gustaf
    Karl-Gustaf Hellqvist

    www.heliochroma.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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