Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,301   Posts: 1,536,157   Online: 821
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,630
    Someone should finally do an actual test of Rodinal stand and plot the results with a given film to see what it is actually doing. Suppose it offers no sensitometric advantage compared with other straight forward procedures, or worse, maybe you get less speed relative to contrast?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    When you look at the shadow area beneath the car to the front on the right, in the first set the EI 400 shot has less detail in that area than at EI800 shot. Strange. In the second set, the shadows in this area get brighter and brighter from EI50 to EI400, which is the brightest in this area, although it should really just be the other way round. Even stranger. This somehow doesn't make sense. You mixed up the shots or something is flawed in your test set up or workflow. Or maybe I don't understand the magic of stand development

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,245
    Images
    296
    I think the problem here might also be that a scanner is used, and there is no reference, like a step wedge.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    The outdoor part of the image looks fine but the indoor part is under exposed. I don't think that is a very good test. You can rate your film however you want, but your negative exposure is determined by how you meter.

    The logic of your test is like this example from another forum: "When I shoot a building in the sun I rate Tri-X at 25,600! I point my spot meter in the window of the building. I find an object in there and I set that on Zone V. For example I might get an exposure of 1/500th at f16 and pictures always come out fine, so I have been using Tri-X at 25,600 all the time now."
    I think your little confused, you essentially just said that you shoot it basically with the sunny 16 rule which isn't at all 25,600... (To make this easy let's say it's 1/400 at f/16)

    So your basically shooting at box speed... (400) You're just metering a different area of the scene than what is traditionally done.

    So it's not that Tmax can be shot at 25,600 and developed normally, it's that your metering is ... Different... But you should realize you're essentially shooting it at box speed...

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225

    Test: Tmax400 @ 800,1600 and 3200 in Rodinal Std.

    OP, would you be willing to lay out all of the negatives on a lightbox and take a picture of that image so that we can all see the difference in the density of the negatives before you made your adjustments? Or make a contact print of them all together?

  6. #16
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,133
    Images
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Someone should finally do an actual test of Rodinal stand and plot the results with a given film to see what it is actually doing. Suppose it offers no sensitometric advantage compared with other straight forward procedures, or worse, maybe you get less speed relative to contrast?
    That would be great...

    Quote Originally Posted by mnemosyne View Post
    When you look at the shadow area beneath the car to the front on the right, in the first set the EI 400 shot has less detail in that area than at EI800 shot. Strange. In the second set, the shadows in this area get brighter and brighter from EI50 to EI400, which is the brightest in this area, although it should really just be the other way round. Even stranger. This somehow doesn't make sense. You mixed up the shots or something is flawed in your test set up or workflow. Or maybe I don't understand the magic of stand development
    Yeah, I noticed some... discrepancies, too. A mix up or maybe the light changed...?

  7. #17
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,687
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I think the problem here might also be that a scanner is used, and there is no reference, like a step wedge.
    Yeah that.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,936
    I have replied earlier to the OP's statement on his process for HDR scenes which I assume to be the contrasty scenes where you overexpose for shadows and compensate with dev time for highlights. It seems that the OP's process is the reverse if I have understood it which is strange.

    However I also note the OP has another thread where he/she is trying to get answers on what is meant by exposing for shadows and developing for highlights where I think the thinking there may be confused.

    I wonder if he/she may be experiencing confusion in this whole field.

    pentaxuser

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    OP, would you be willing to lay out all of the negatives on a lightbox and take a picture of that image so that we can all see the difference in the density of the negatives before you made your adjustments? Or make a contact print of them all together?
    I will post the original scans when I have the time.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225

    Test: Tmax400 @ 800,1600 and 3200 in Rodinal Std.

    Quote Originally Posted by jsimoespedro View Post
    I will post the original scans when I have the time.
    That doesn't help... Your scanner may automatically adjust things...

    Why can't you post just a snapshot with your cell phone of the negs on a lightbox? That will show us how they differ before interpretation.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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