Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,343   Posts: 1,682,453   Online: 995
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Tony Egan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,147
    Images
    76
    As others have said not too contrasty, particularly the first shot, but rather the subject matter is very low contrast as shot in shadow. Need to increase exposure at least 2 stops to get anything meaningful to work with in terms of local contrast.
    Do you use the squint test to check what your camera sees as opposed to your super powerful and magical eyes? When looking at a subject squint your eyes until almost closed to effectively reduce your visual aperture and you will get a much better idea of what will appear on the negative. You will often decide to not shoot or change your position, lighting etc when following this simple process.
    http://www.tonyeganphotography.com/index.html
    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." Groucho Marx

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by jon koss View Post
    …and by extension, if the exposure in these photos were adjusted to land the faces on the correct value, then it looks as if the backgrounds would be quite bald. That could be overdevelopment or it could be that there is too much difference between the brightness of the face and the background for any exposure/development regimen to handle.
    There's an old saying, "Meter the hero."

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,813
    Images
    300
    Yep, first shot definitely underexposed. Way underexposed, and it's a metering problem.

    Second shot looks very nice to me. Maybe one more stop of exposure would have been good, though, to really fill in some shadows.

    Once you have exposure under control, you start to work with your development time to dial in a good level of contrast. In case you hadn't had that epiphany yet - final negative contrast is something we control by adjusting developing time and agitation to suit what we photographed.
    "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
    Regular Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    670
    They are both underexposed. The first one very much so and the second by perhaps only a stop. How do you meter?

    Nevertheless you are to be congratulated on your choice of subjects!

    RR

  5. #15
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,031
    Images
    2
    +1

    I like the second shot - and I tend to favour underexposing a shot usually.

  6. #16
    Hatchetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,013
    Images
    10
    Are those development directions from Kodak?

  7. #17
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,249
    Images
    348
    As others have said, under exposure at the camera stage.

    “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

  8. #18
    rubyfalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    171
    +3. Also? I don't worry about the purple. YMMV, but it has never posed a problem for me. I scan greyscale.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #19
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Lots of good advice here Richard. It's easy to underexpose in low light using the in-camera meter. I recommend always using a hand held meter for low light portraiture. Once you have one, shoot a few test rolls over a weekend in various lighting situations and record your detailed findings in a notebook to keep as your beacon. Pay attention to the variables, ie lighting conditions, film speed, filter options, dev, water temp and your prefer paper characteristics. Enjoy.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #20
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Under or over exposure is quite common for vintage cameras. Could be issues with the photo cells or batteries, or just the metering method.

    If you want to use in-camera metering you should learn its quirks and adjust exposure manually.

    The second image is fixable in Lightroom or Photoshop.

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