Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,947   Online: 778
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    Thanks, where can I get that? I only have access to Ilford HC and LC29, though I do have my own supply of HC-110
    I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but all 3 are the same developer. There might be slight difference between kodak and ilford. LC29 is a more diluted version of HC.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Well, my point is not that each of those items have to be individually accounted for.

    The point is that they cumulatively can make a big difference.

    And that's precisely why we need to figure out for ourselves how to rate our film.

    Sure, somebody else can tell us to start at 250, but then if we are interested in the best results, which I presume the OP is, (or they wouldn't be here asking), then you have to go see for yourself ANYWAY.

    The idea is to save ourselves the trouble and just go do a fairly rudimentary speed test, and be done with it.
    Yes, you are quite correct. I misunderstood your initial post - apology for that. Somehow I think the OP was expecting the film and development to do it all for him, to get the result he wanted. Reality check later, I think he realises that the final image will take some work from the negative. As Ansel said: The negative is the score, the print the performance. One still has to perform it, somehow.

  3. #33
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,391
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    That's why I asked what is the ISO when I shot at 320 but the EV is plus 1.

    As for why I was unhappy, well honestly, the contrast was low and lacked the sparkle I always want.
    For clarity, the ISO ("box") speed of a film is a measurement of how the film responds to certain conditions that can be replicated in a laboratory. They have a reasonable relationship with some real world conditions.

    The Exposure Index ("EI") speed you use when metering is the speed you choose to take into account your real world circumstances. For many people, their personal EI is either the same as or close to the ISO speed of the film.

    If your contrast is low and the film lacks sparkle, it sounds to me like the film is under-developed, not under-exposed. Try modifying your development time.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #34
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,321
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    Tried that, but the shots came out looking very bland......
    Can you elaborate on that?

    “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

  5. #35
    NedL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Sonoma County, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    842
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Why not shoot at box speed and develop to what you find best?
    I'm still a beginner, but this is what I've done over the past ~year with the two film types I use most. The best thing that happened to me was overdeveloping my FP4+ and seeing what happened... I liked printing them MORE. So instead of creeping up on the right amount of development, I went a too far and then backed off until it was "just right". It gives a feel for the whole set of things that happen when is overdeveloped: grain, contrast, separation in the highlights and shadows, overall density, etc. I'm glad I printed some under and over developed negatives because it gave me an overall feel for what's happening. And got me to negatives I'm happy with and are (usually) easy to print.

    Reading this thread is really great. Matt and Thomas really lay out all the different things that make differences. I suspect metering technique is really a big factor, and might largely explain why we have to find our development times personally rather than just straight from the manufacturer's recommendations.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Can you elaborate on that?
    Well, when I take a shot, I sort of previsual of how I want it to turn out and I try to develop so i wouldn't have to spend so much time on the enlarger.

  7. #37
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,335
    Images
    225
    The big boys here don't like you talking about scanning because it is in the traditional process and would prefer that you go over to DPUG for those issues, and I'm thinking that this is in fact the scanner issue.

    I went through something similar trying to get TMY-2 to look good and also to shoot at 400 and I really couldn't do it for the longest time until I realized that my scanner wasn't interpreting the scene correctly for 400 speed films. And in fact the images were exposed properly and were exciting, it's just that the scanner wasn't working properly on auto mode and I had to do some manual adjustments, because the negatives looks fine, but the scan didn't seem to work right.

    As a side point, scanners tend to read a negative differently then optically printing them, and often times like A thinner negative, which actually kind of contradicts what you did here. So I'm not sure about that whole thing.

    I last point is, if you're shooting at 160 but using a 400 speed film, why not try something like FP4+ since that's closer to that ASA, it seems a little pointless to shoot a 400 speed film at 160...

    Instead of driving yourself nuts, take a roll, shoot the entire thing, 15 shots at 400, and 15 shots at 160 with four shots in between of blanks (use your lens cap). Then in the dark cut the film and half, set-aside one half, well working with the other half cut that into three sections then develop each section with a different developing time one at standard listed time, and The other 2 at plus and minus the normal development listing times.

    Then do the same thing with the second half cut it in three and develop each piece at a different time.

    Daniel have examples of the film shot at what seems to be your preferred speed, and also at box speed with different development times. Perhaps then you'll have a better idea of what speed you prefer to shoot at and what development time you prefer to shoot at.

    I know this is boring and tedious, but for four or five dollars and a few hours of your time, you could really get exact information on what you like to shoot and wouldn't have to worry about thinking about it anymore.

    I dictated this using Siri on my iPhone, so if there's any strange wording that's probably why and I apologize.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #38
    Regular Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    Well, I usually metered on area just above the shadows so I guess Zone 2

    I'm sorry I missed your reply and have only just spotted it. If by "just above the shadows" you mean where you can see shadow detail then Zone 2 will be underexposing and will explain quite a lot of why you are not getting the results you are seeking. Try Zone 3 or even Zone 4 on those areas you have been metering, stick with ILFORD's box speed of 400 ISO and develop "normally". In other words keep everything standard but alter the Zone you are positioning your shadow detail on.

    RR

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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