Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,505   Posts: 1,543,485   Online: 1027
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    hey all,

    thanks for all your replies !

    I developed the roll today at 3200. I didn't have a chance to make some contacts yet, but judging from the negatives, they tend to loose quiet some detail in the shadows(like you guys said).
    So this brings me to the next question, if I shoot another 3200 and expose it as an 1600, should I then develop it as an 3200 or 1600 ? Because if you would do the latter, wouldnt you be overexposing +2 stops ?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Tindale View Post
    I had related fun one recent sunday.
    haha, yea I read that when I was doing research for the film. I really like the outcome of them(especially the double exposure one), thanks for sharing !

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,067
    No - develop it at whatever ISO you expose it. Expose 1600 - Develop 1600.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk View Post
    haha, yea I read that when I was doing research for the film. I really like the outcome of them(especially the double exposure one), thanks for sharing !
    Heh - you'll have to tell Komrade P. that. He'll appreciate it. He shot the rolls - I just dev'd them. I was quite pleased that the results were about where they should be - that there was nothing untoward about the development process or results given the difficult subject lighting circumstances in most of the shoot. When we were hanging the rolls up in the bathroom, the film looked no more base-fogged than many ordinary film types exhibit, and certainly not a high amount. The frames looked a touch contrasty to me, but that's the difficulty of the subject. The main thing was that given the times on the massive dev chart (once I'd decoded it into meaningful units*) were pretty much spot on. The density of the dense parts of the film was about ideal, the clarity of the clear parts was ideal too - hopefully the bits in between fell somewhere useful along a linear portion of a curve.

    * by which I mean, the massive dev chart gives its time units in a bit of an unprocessed manner which doesn't immediately translate into a time without further conscious processing by the user. I'd have thought (it being on a computer and all that) the web page should be doing this sort of thinking for us. I mean, it might say a time is 6.5 - what's that supposed to mean? 6 minutes 50 seconds? 6 minutes 30 seconds? 6 minutes 5 seconds? Stop making me think!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk View Post
    hey all,

    thanks for all your replies !

    I developed the roll today at 3200. I didn't have a chance to make some contacts yet, but judging from the negatives, they tend to loose quiet some detail in the shadows(like you guys said).
    So this brings me to the next question, if I shoot another 3200 and expose it as an 1600, should I then develop it as an 3200 or 1600 ? Because if you would do the latter, wouldnt you be overexposing +2 stops ?
    I shoot at 1600, develop at box time for 3200 9.25 but increase the dilution, Clayton F76 1:11 rather than 1:9.

  6. #16
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,815
    The original T-Max 3200 gave me decent shadow detail and highlights at an EI of 1600 and developed as Kodak recommended for EI 3200. One's choice of EI and develolpment is a personal one. In poor light, we sometimes have to sacrifice shadow detail and other photographic quality to get any image at all. Shadow detail can also be sacrificed for dramatic effect: consider Eugene Smith's prints.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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