Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,548   Posts: 1,573,030   Online: 845
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: !

  1. #1
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  2. #2
    Loose Gravel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    921
    Images
    14
    The area of the neg that prints the shadows is the lower left and the highlights (the high densities) is the upper right of the 'curve'.

    I think there are too many film/dev combos out there to say one is best for this or that. It is more likely that there are so many that are fine and that do not limit our ability to make a photograph. Pick one film/dev and stay with it. Learn to understand it in different lighting situations. I know you are using PMK. I use this and think it works great, although sometimes I feel as though it is way harder than it should be. But I invested much time to get it to work and I'm sticking with it. I use HP5+ for all my formats: 35mm to 5x7. People tell me all the time to try this film or that for better grain or because... I don't know why. It think it is because we all feel that we will make better photos if we are using the same stuff. But if I'm using a 57, why would I care about grain? I need all the speed I can get. If I'm using 35mm, I use it because it for its speed and spontaneity, and if I have more time, I'll use a bigger camera on a tripod. You know what, HP5+ works for me and the last thing I need is another experiment. A good photographer can get just about any film to work. If your shadows are weak, give more exposure. I your highlights are blown out (can't happen with PMK) then cut back on development or use PMK.

    We all need to quick dorking around and take more photos.
    Watch for Loose Gravel

  3. #3
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    Sometimes these experiments lead back full circle. I tried HP5 and liked the look of the TRI X grain (little dots) better than the paisley looking smudged grain of HP5. HP5 looks LESS grainy though - Untill you are up close. Anyway - great shots are made on all kinds of combos every day.

    I think the graphs are useful when you consider how you want to expose and develop a shot. If the film can record 10 stops and you have a 5 stop image, where you place those 5 stops, near the toe or near the shoulder will impact not only the contrast but the linearity of the contrast. More development time makes the graph steaper and less development time makes the graph flatter. I tend to stay in the middle of the graph if I can. (That is my level of craft at the moment) I have no fear of changing the slope however. I might opt to increase my development to make those 5 ranges expand the the whole range of the film (a portrait or still life?) - Or - more often, I will lower the slope (landscapes) with a short development time and know that I have captured details I had not considered. - Then I can print them up if I need to. The film speed changes with the change in the slope though.

    Pyro and Catechol affect the shoulderof the slope. The tanning clamps the highlights by not letting fresh developer in after a certain amount of development has taken place. Metol based developers will cause less curve at the shoulder because they will permit more blocking in the highlights. It can almost seem like the highlights go out of focus due to the blocking.

    One thing I am sure of - one can spend their photo time in technology and have no time to create or capture beauty. Technology is good but sometimes even the greats would just guess and wing it!

    One last thing - grain and LF. I have shot TechPan, APX100 and TRI X in 4x5. The difference in the look of TechPan and TRI X is amazing. The Techpan is very very smooth and although you would not say the TRI X is grainy on a 16x20 print from a 4x5 negative, when you see them side by side - it is very apparent. Kind of like 8x10 contact prints I would guess. - Different when you compare -
    Frank
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Aggie,
    The other thing that is involved with the characteristic curve of a film is the left vertical line of the characteristic curve graph is the net density, the lower horizontal line is the measurement in stops of exposure (zones). Therefore in comparing characteristic curves of films we can determine the length of the toe, where the shoulder occurs, and how pronounced it is.

    The reason for looking at the length of the toe is that since this is the shadow area of the film. We can look at this in terms of stops of light (zones) that are found on the toe. This is an area that does not separate tonalities well since the angle of the slope is much shallower then the straight line section that then follows.

    When we view the straight line, we can determine the severety of the angle (the amount of density added per stop of light exposure). This will depict the separation of the midtone values.

    When we view the shoulder we see at what point it begins to be introduced in relation to stops of exposure and how much it flattens. If it flattens markedly then any highlights that are recorded there will not be separated well in their tonality.

    If one were to compare a high contrast film such as tech pan we would see that this film has a fairly straight line from the toe to the shoulder. This film can tolerate a great deal of contrast expansion. (depending on the developer used and time of development). Conversely Tri X has a fairly long toe (reaching almost to zone III) and then has a fairly long straight line (zones III-XI). This film would not separate shadows well if it is exposed so that our lowest value is placed at a Zone I value.

    However, we can expose Tri X so that our low values are on Zone III. Because the exposure (in this example) has placed our low values on the straight line section of the film curve the shadows are better separated.

    Just as there are characteristic curves for films there are also characteristic curves for papers. In the case of paper, the toe area would be exactly reversed from film in that the highlights are represented on the toe and the highlights are represented on the shoulder.

    I think that a great deal can be learned about the characteristics of materials by viewing the manufacturers graphic depiction of those characteristics. Ultimately, of course, the defining parameter is what is shown in the print. Understanding our materials helps that process along.

    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  5. #5
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    Don:

    I bet APX100 must have a real short toe then because of the great shadow separation I get with it. - I always put my important shadows in zone 3 anyway (that keeps me out of trouble with tri-x) - Frank
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  6. #6
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Frank,
    Yes, I agree with your placement on TriX. Sometimes I even place my low value at Zone IV with TriX. Depending if I want to give an impression of great luminance in the scene. Of course, the other thing that enters is what EI one rates a film at. I have found through testing that TriX (prof) actually exposes in my system at an EI of 160. This gives me a zone I density of .10 density above fb+fog. The reason that I mention this is that if one person rates TriX at 320 and is giving a Zone III exposure for shadows and another rates it at 160 and gives a Zone III exposure, then the second is actually giving a Zone IV exposure based upon the first persons rating of 320.

    I think that John Sexton was once purported to have said "Nothing lives on Zone III". I have always observed a sense of luminance in his images. Perhaps that is why.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  8. #8
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    I rate TRI X at 200. I don't have a densitometer but the results are good at N processing for a printable zone 1. Interesting quote about nothing living at zone 3. I am very unwilling to loose shadow detail.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Aggie,

    The main thing you need to know about the curve of PMK negatives is that it shoulders quite a bit. This can be a very good thing if you are photograhing a scene that has a lot of extended highlight detail because it will extend the range of printable highlights, and a not so good thing in scenes that require a lot of separation in the highlights.

    I have a question for Frank regarding the following statement. "Pyro and Catechol affect the shoulder of the slope. The tanning clamps the highlights by not letting fresh developer in after a certain amount of development has taken place."

    On what do you base this statement? I have done a lost of testing with both pyrogallol and pyrocatechin developers and it is not my experience that these developers affect the shoulder in any significant way that is different from traditional developers, except for the manner in which the stain color may impact VC papers. For sure PMK shoulders, but in my opinion this shouldering results from developer exhaustion, in the same way that a glycin-based developer like FX-2 shoulders, and not from any inherent tendency of pyrogallol as a reducing agentl to shoulder. The tests I have done with ABC Pyro, Rollo Pyro and Pyrocat-HD, which are much more energetic than PMK, do not show any sign of shouldering in the curves.

    Sandy




    Metol based developers will cause less curve at the shoulder because they will permit more blocking in the highlights. It can almost seem like the highlights go out of focus due to the blocking."


    Pyro and Catechol affect the shoulderof the slope. The tanning clamps the highlights by not letting fresh developer in after a certain amount of development has taken place. Metol based developers will cause less curve at the shoulder because they will permit more blocking in the highlights. It can almost seem like the highlights go out of focus due to the blocking.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    I am having a very bad day with the APUG protocol for posting message, for which I apologize. The last two paragraphs of my last message are part of Frank's earlier message, not a new post by me

    Sandy
    .

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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