Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,573   Posts: 1,545,698   Online: 791
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: HP5 at ISO1600

  1. #41
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    +1

    Is it fair to say that it ought to be slightly less sensitive when processing as there are no colours that can go off? I'm asking because I have started to hand process my C41 films and it's not easy to be within 1/3 of a grade Celsius without a tempered processor.
    I don't think sensitive is the right word, but I think you have the idea right.

    There is no color to balance.

    The ultra tight processing specs for C41 color films is to make sure all three color layers balance.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    530
    Images
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    It is typically easier to pick one subject, meter it and apply an appropriate offset.
    That's how my post has been meant. Thanks

  3. #43
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen View Post
    That's how my post has been meant. Thanks
    So you are spot metering?
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  4. #44
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,309
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    The images I shot were similar to your 3rd one Stone. Outdoors, at night, with very little light. Except that mine seem to have huge areas where nothing has been recorded on the negative. I dont think HC-110 is the culprit as literally NOTHING is on the film. Surely if exposed properly some part of the image would appear during development. DD-X might make it look better but it is not like HC-110 cant cause the image to form.

    I need to take metering more seriously when doing shots like this.
    Hey RattyMouse,

    I should disclose that I am not a good one to talk about the kinds of photography that looks successful when pushing to 1600, because I "don't get it".

    For that available darkness kind of cityscape, you need MORE exposure (to get detail in the blackness) and LESS development (to hold down the light sources). And you need to think about reciprocity law failure too.

    If you are familiar with the Large Format Photography site, I'd like you to check out a thread there "Loooooong exposures (at night)" - Vaughn shares Michael Kenna's exposure data.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    530
    Images
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    So you are spot metering?
    Yes, I use an OM3 for subjects that involve pushing HP5 or TriX. If I had to use a hand hold meter along with one of my MF cameras, I would ty to get as close as possible to the most relevant parts of my subject to get a reading.

  6. #46
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen View Post
    Yes, I use an OM3 for subjects that involve pushing HP5 or TriX. If I had to use a hand hold meter along with one of my MF cameras, I would ty to get as close as possible to the most relevant parts of my subject to get a reading.
    What you say of pushing is partly true.

    Underexposure does reduce shadow detail on the film. That detail is lost forever and no amount of extra development can bring it back. That is the biggest reason I avoid pushing.

    At the highlight end though, extra development does not blow out the highlights on the film, the detail is still there and very usable, the highlights just get more dense, not lost and if you want them they just need to be burned in during printing.

    I attached a graph that may help. Black shows normal development. Blue shows more development (a push). Green shows less development (a pull).

    The red lines are examples of the limits of what a specific paper grade might print; everything below the bottom line prints black, everything above the top line prints white.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails b.jpg  
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,758
    I see your hands are as shaky as mine!

  8. #48
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Yes.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  9. #49
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    This one is better. Colors are flipped.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Screen Shot 2014-03-09 at 9.50.10 PM.png  
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,966
    Images
    42
    Ok, back to me, the OP.

    Reading this thread, I'm now a bit confused. I shot HP5 at ISO1600, which would underexpose the film by 2 stops. My images, look like they are underexposed as many respondents said they might be.

    Above, Mark wrote"Underexposure does reduce shadow detail on the film. That detail is lost forever and no amount of extra development can bring it back. That is the biggest reason I avoid pushing."

    So I'm left to wonder what exactly I can obtain with pushing HP5 or any other film 2 stops. If underexposing the film fails to product an imagine on the film (as my negatives clearly show with 75% of the area blank), then what can I accomplish? Or conversely, what good is exposing the film at ISO1600, and then adding in more EV (thus really exposing it at ISO800 or even back to 400!!)

    Just call me,

    Dazed and Confused.........

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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