Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,907   Posts: 1,555,878   Online: 988
      
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 69
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55

    The Perfectly Exposed Negative

    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Not an excuse Ray, you should know me better than that. I just don't happen to immediately have scans of identical negatives on hand that demonstrate expanded or contracted results at different speeds for a common emulsion.
    ok Jason, accepted

    in the interests of being open to learning something new, how's about somebody post a "perfectly" exposed image and explain, without using high tech babble, why it is "perfect" and how that shows on the final image

    Ray

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by jd callow View Post
    Ray,
    I think that is a good seed for a separate thread.

    ...
    you could be right jd, but i feel my posts extend the OP,
    feel free to do as you think appropriate

    Ray

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    so, no one wnats to post an image

    ok i’ll dive in

    the attached image is a contact print from a 4x5 negative

    a friend gave me an old box of 5x7 FP4 (not plus) to use in my homemade simple lens box camera

    along with 10 or so sheets of 5x7 there was a separately wrapped package of 12 5x4 sheets, the 5x4 had the same notches as the 5x7 so I assumed both sizes were FP4

    i had virtually no experience of using or processing sheet film

    i guessed the film must be at least 10 years old, my friend wasn’t sure

    i figured the film had probably lost at least a stop of sensitivity

    i exposed the film at 50 ISO (less than half if it really was FP4) in my homemade camera for 2 seconds at f64

    this camera has a magnifying glass for a lens which I think is 90mm focal length

    the aperture is a hole cut in a piece of black sheet which I tried to measure accurately enough to give me an effective f64

    the exposure was timed by chanting 1 one thousand, 2 one thousand while I had the lens cap removed

    I processed the sheet using Ilford LC-29 for the time that I process modern FP4 (the plus version)

    did I get the exposure wrong?

    was the processing ok?

    is the exposure accurate to a third of a stop?

    does the final image convey enough visual data to be interesting?

    should I now shoot 25 sheets (a full box) of film to get my exposures closer to “perfect”?

    comments, please

    Ray
    Last edited by Ray Heath; 05-21-2008 at 09:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #4
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    you could be right jd, but i feel my posts extend the OP,
    feel free to do as you think appropriate

    Ray

    Ray,
    In an effort to keep the other thread on the topic of film testing as well as to give this topic its due i feel it is appropriate to start a new thread.

    *

  5. #5
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    I think the exposure looks good. I also think with film that old and a system that is that custom you are lucky to have gotten such a good combination right off the bat.

    *

  6. #6
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,864
    Images
    97
    Ray,

    I would not find that image of acceptable technical quality based on what I see on my monitor. It looks like sooty in the dark areas. You have no black areas and the sky and other highlights are blown out. That may be the fault of the scan or my monitor, and your print may look fine in hand.

    Whether the exposure is correct or close is subjective unless you share your visual intent with us. That scan is not reproducing my "reality" (i.e., it doesn't look like what I think I would see if I had been there) and it doesn't appear expressively printed (to my tastes at least). What are you trying to show with this example? That you can use expired and possibly fogged materials with crappy optics and get a recognizable image?

    I've looked at enough photographs and talked to enough people about their prints to realize that some people just do not discriminate the finer aspects of print quality. They just plain don't see it. What passes for a quality print varies greatly between observers. If you like the print, fine. If it were mine, it would be hitting the circular file.

    As far as whether being 1/3 stop off matters, sometimes it does. I specifically tested and bracketed an image about 20 years ago to see just how good of a print I could get from the variations. The one with normal exposure produced a print that the other negatives couldn't match. The scene was shot in hazy sunlight in the winter in a snow-covered urban scene. Only the one exposure captured the quality of the snow correctly.

    The crux of the Zone System is the visualization. The film and paper testing is incidental. But those are the parts that get written about and people get lost in ad infinitum.

    As far as testing films and the other thread, the OP wanted to know if there was a way to figure out the Zone System tests using less sheets. Whether you think the Zone System is a valid approach or if testing is needed was not to the point of the original post. I described a way to get the maximum amount of info using a few sheets of film which was to the point of the original question. Others had different answers - some good, some less good, some terribly muddling .

    In all honesty, I don't test and work this way any longer. I really do just look at the light and shadows now and make a judgement on how to expose and develop. (Actually it has been over two years since I did any work on film.) But, the film testing I did informed the later simplification of technique and I would recommend doing it at least once to get to know the materials.

    Some things are "good enough" and some things are sublime.

    Joe

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    thnx Joe

    so now post an image to show me your "reality"

    my image may well have muddy shadows, the shadows are not an important aspect in this image, i wanted to show the range of tones in the other areas

    sure zone testing and all the other high tech stuff may lead to a supposed finer print quality, most can't see it, most don't need it and those aspects are not the only measure of a strong/interesting/successful image

    as to the OP you interpret and answer one way, i responded differently

    come on post an image

    Ray

  8. #8
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,864
    Images
    97
    OK, I'll bite. Of anything I have scanned, this one is probably one where I actually paid some attention to the principles I've gone through. The lighting was pretty flat, the film pushed a little as a result, and her left shoulder area needs a little burning, but this is from a pretty decent negative.

    In my Mac Firefox browser it appears hot and redder compared to how it displays side-by-side in Photoshop. In the smaller comparison pair, I've darkened them equally to try to compensate for the difference (so that the small Firefox image looks like the original Photoshop one). The darkened Photoshop half is at left with Firefox at right.



    TMY 120 pushed a little, printed on Ilford Multigrade FB Warmtone w/ #2 1/2 filter, and selectively toned in 1+6 KRST toner. I mention the technical aspects only because I did plan the effect of the toner when I printed.

    Joe

  9. #9
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117

    TXP rated at 320 and souped in xtol semi stand for 25 min 1:3 stock to water



    TXP rated at 200 roller developed (constant agitation) in D76 1:3 for 11min (if I remember correctly)


    Both negs might not be perfect , but they are all that I have handy in b&W and neither are the results of heavy testing by me.

    *

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    thank you Joe

    anyone else?

Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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