Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,652   Posts: 1,623,584   Online: 743
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Windisch's Compensating Pyrocatechin developer. It really works - I have a negative showing both sunspots and foreground detail, shot during a partial eclipse.

    There's Maxim Muir's modification as well, but the original Windisch is the "strongest".
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  2. #12
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,408
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard
    In Ansel Adam's book, "The Negative", page 234, there's a photo of a light bulb with plenty of detail showing. ...
    I have that book! I'll look it up.

  3. #13
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,408
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Monophoto
    Have you considered a multiple exposure technique - a longer exposure with the lights off combined with a shorter exposure with the lights on. It would be experimental, but that's quite in keeping with the source of inspiration - - -
    Actually, yes, I had thought of that. It's a good idea! However, looking at the fixture that gave me the idea, I think more would change than just the tube being brighter. There would be all kinds of shadows and reflections that would register as "double exposures".

    However, I've also had an idea in my head for years of photographing a single, clear tungsten bulb; and your suggestion might be workable there.

    On a heretical note, I also thought of making two separate negs - one on, one off - and layering them in Photoshop ... :o

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown
    I have an idea for some shots of light fixtures and light bulbs. You know, B&W graphic, abstract sort of close up stuff.

    ( I got the idea while bored and leaning way back in my chair in the cubicle of employment ... but, I digress.)

    Anyway, it occurs to me that the contrast with the lights off will be very flat and uninteresting, while having the lights on will result in the actual tubes and bulbs themselves blown out.

    Since I don't have sheet film, I am looking for suggestions in 120 (or even 35mm) that will give me really compressed contrast negs. I'm confident of being able to print any detail that is on the negative, but I don't want the light sources to completely block up on the neg! Then, there's nothing to print.

    Film/developer/time suggestions - all welcome. Yes, I'm willing to experiment and test, but I need a starting point.

    Thanks in advance.

    David

    David,

    If I were going to attempt something like this I would depart from the normal method of exposure in this way.

    I would pre flash the film to non image bearing light at a Zone III or IV exposure value. I would then do a second exposure metering the light bulb exposure value (totally disregarding the shadow exposure) and placing the light bulb at a zone IX exposure for this second exposure.

    The pre flash will support your shadow..the second exposure will give you the highlight placement that you want. I would then develop on the basis of the actual brightness ratio of the combination of the two exposures.

  5. #15
    NikoSperi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    15
    Sorry to approach this from the other end of the problem, but I have seen the very problem addressed by plugging the light into lower voltage. This gets the filament to glow without creating the highlight problems galore. I can't remember the numbers, but simply rig a dimmer upstream and your highlight problem is solved. And then, you can revert to lighting the setup as you would nearly any still life.
    If you tone it down alot, it almost becomes bearable.

    - Walker Evans on using color

  6. #16
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,751
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Just use a dimmer and adjust the brightness to the correct value. If you are using a flourescent bulb disregard this bit of cheating advice.

    edit: I see Nico had the same suggestion - sorry to be redundant.

  7. #17
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,408
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
    Just use a dimmer and adjust the brightness to the correct value. If you are using a flourescent bulb disregard this bit of cheating advice.

    edit: I see Nico had the same suggestion - sorry to be redundant.
    Actually, I had already thought of this plan, too, for the bare bulb idea.

    What struck me today, though, are these flourescent fixtures with elaborate reflectors. It's the reflectors that will make the image. So, I can't use a dimmer (if for no other reason than they're in an office bldg), and the double exposure idea (although a good one) doesn't seem feasable to me since the reflectors cause the image to be completely different with the tubes on or off.

    I think using a film I normally use, (such as Lee's suggestion of Tri-x) overexposing and really holding back on development to lower the contrast is going to be my starting point.

    I really appreciate everyone's thoughts!!! It's what APUG does best - that's why I asked.

    Cheers y'all.

    David

    PS: I expected a few answers, but not so many during business hours and so fast. Don't you (we) have jobs?

    OK, maybe Ole and Niko (et al) don't count ...

  8. #18
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    A little addendum: I used APX100 for the eclipse shot. I have no idea how other films will behave in Windisch's developer.

    I'm off work today, but if I had been at work I would still have answered
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,098
    [QUOTE=David Brown]

    PS: I expected a few answers, but not so many during business hours and so fast. Don't you (we) have jobs?

    QUOTE]

    Nah, self-employment, the only way to go.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Take a look here: http://schifrad.home.pipeline.com/im...target=tlx_new

    FP4+, EI 125, XTOL 1+3 for about 15 minutes at 68 deg. F. Agitation by twirling stick in a no-name plastic tank for 10 seconds each minute. The scanned image shows a bright blob at the bulb's filament location. You can still see the outline of the bulb's envelope even in this poor scan. That blob is much less apparent, and there is a hint of the image of the filament, in the analog print. I was not trying to capture that detail in particular, but there it is. A stop or two of overexposure coupled with reduced development should do the trick for you witout resorting to exotic developers and techniques.

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