Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,534   Posts: 1,544,036   Online: 1109
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arlington, Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler View Post
    Thanks everyone for your comments. My problem is that I really like the PanF+ pulled + Perceptol combination because of the superior fine grain that is achieved but I am have a terrible time with contrast, as in not enough. I am currently working on a series of shot on abandoned farmhouses, so I am indoors with natural light, at 25 ISO, leading to 15-30 second exposure times as a norm. I think I am going to have to follow Thomas' suggestion and determine in a more accurate fashion what it is that will work for my project. I know I could go with a faster film to increase the contrast but I was hoping to do the project all with the same film/developer. That might just be an unrealistic expectation.
    Are you correcting for reciprocity failure for those 15-30 sec exposures? If not, you will underexpose and end up with flat negs.

  2. #12
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Budding View Post
    Are you correcting for reciprocity failure for those 15-30 sec exposures? If not, you will underexpose and end up with flat negs.
    As much as I would like to say "of course", this might be a significant factor as I probably forget more often than not. When I find the time to do the development tests (hopefully this week), I will have to take this into account now and in the future besides TATTOOING IT ON MY FOREHEAD!
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arlington, Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    467
    A meter reading of 15 sec will actually require about a 50 sec exposure. The 30 sec reading will need 150 sec.

    http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...6115811391.pdf

    Good luck with your testing!

  4. #14
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    To learn about reciprocity, go to www.unblinkingeye.com and look for the article "LIRF is lurking at your F-stop".
    Gadget Gainer

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    There is a persistent myth that over exposure is required to get good shadow detail. This is not necessarily true and entirely dependant of subject contrast range. AA is known primarily as landscape photographer where very often he has bright clouds and dark shadows in the images and where the subject contrast range is great. Result is that he uses a 10 zone system and to make a 10 stop subject from black to white fit onto a negative which then fits directly to paper, you need to overexpose and reduce development from manufacturers recommended times.
    So what are manufacturers recommended times based on? Well, usually around a 7 stop range for negative films. That is based on the "average subject" brightness range and not high contrast scenes.
    So now take your subject and find out what its range is. You have a spot meter so that should be easy to determine. Since it is indoors I strongly suspect it will be a low contrast subject. Very probably less than 7 stops from black to white unless you have windows or shafts of sunlight coming into the image. For a 7 stop or less subject range you should not be giving additional exposure so expose at ISO speed and use manufacturers recommended times. That will give you the contrast in the negative which will fit the paper.
    If you are still getting low contrast negatives, then increase development time 30% and try again and if you are still getting low contrast negatives, then go to ISO 60 or above.

    As you know the zone system as says there are zones 0 thru 10. By default each of those zones is 1 stop of exposure. However, the zone system is so flexible that if you have a subject of say only 6 stop range from black to white, then you can say each zone is 1/10 of that range. That would make each zone step 0.6 stops. That means that if you meter what you want on zone 3, then you would reduce exposure by 1.2 stops or 1 1/3 which is close enough. This assumes you have tailored development of your film to fit a 6 stop range.
    The same applies for slide film except slide film is high contrast film and out of the box it accepts only 5 to 6 stops brightness range from black to white. Assume 5 stops and therefore you can say each zone is 1/2 stop step. So if you meter what you want on zone 8 then you open up 1 1/2 stops to expose it correctly. A little trial and error is required but that will be pretty close.

    So to recap, high contrast scenes need extra exposure and reduced development from manufacturers recommendations (based on a manuafcturers 7 stop range).

    Normal contrast scenes require use of manufacturers recommended numbers and low contrast scenes require reduced exposure and increased development.

    But all of these require knowing how long to develop for.

    For b+W films you should do some print tests:
    To calibrate for a 10 stop subject range. Expose an even subject at zone 1 and then the same at zone 9 using 1 stop for each zone step. Print the zone 1 neg until it is just slightly less dark than a max black. Then print the zone 9 neg using the same print time and it should have just a hint of grey.
    If its white then reduce development a little (20%) and try again. Iterate until you nail it.

    To calibrate for a 7 stop subject range. Repeat the above except make each zone a 0.7 stop step. So exposing for zone 1 would be metered value and then closed down 4 x 0.7 = 2.8 stops ( a little over exposure is best so make it 2.66 stops. i.e. 2/ 2/3). Then expose a zone 9 neg which will be plus 4 x 0.7 from metered value. or rounding up for a little over exposure makes that + 3 stops. And print as above.

    To calibrate for a 5 stop subject range. Repeat the above except make each zone a 0.5 stop step. So exposing for zone 1 would be metered value and then closed down 4 x 0.5 = 2 stops. Then expose a zone 9 neg which will be plus 4 x 0.5 = 2 stops from metered value. And print as above to prove development is correct.

    Note that a zone 1 neg should have a small amount of density greater than the fb+fog. If the zone 1 neg is same as fb+fog then you need extra exposure (reduce film speed). If zone 1 neg is too dense then less exposure is required (increase film speed).

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Budding View Post
    Are you correcting for reciprocity failure for those 15-30
    sec exposures? If not, you will underexpose and end
    up with flat negs.
    Follows is my understanding.
    Reciprocity's failure applies to those portions of a scene
    who's level of lighting falls below some minimum. The failure
    is non-linear and accelerates. So dropout increases
    disproportionately with lowering light levels. An
    increase in contrast occures in those low
    level lighted areas. Dan

  7. #17
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    I would expect that the contrast range in those abandoned farmhouse interiors would be well within the limits of normal exposure and normal development----so long as you are not interested in detail in any kind of outside areas, such as outside the windows or doors. If, as I surmise, you are underdeveloping in an attempt to hold detail in those outside areas, or areas very close to the windows and doors, of course the remaining tones are going to be "flat."
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  8. #18
    Steve Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    520
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    My philosophy - underexposed, overexposed, underdeveloped, overdeveloped - these are all relative terms. Find the combination of exposure and development that works for you and you have - perfect exposure and perfect development. Nothing else matters.

    - Thomas
    Well said!

    I was never comfortable with the terms Over or Under anything. This gives the implication that there is a known which over and under relate too.

    Maybe to a degree in color neg. / pos. material but not in B&W.

    My way of thinking is More exp. Less dev. and vice versa.

    Determine what tonalities you want in the final print and learn the techniques necessary to effect those tones and you'll never under or over anything again!
    Real Photographs are Born Wet !
    http://www.steve-sherman.com

  9. #19
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    I thought I would show you some of the problems. This is PanF+, 25 ISO, 8 seconds at f/11, developed in 1:1 Perceptol for 10:30 minutes and then scanned into PS to do what I could with the negative (my darkroom is currently in storage due to space).



    Another problem shot, HP5+, 400 ISO, 1/60 at f/8, developed in 1:1 ID-11 for 13 minutes and scanned into PS.

    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    From the times and developer concentrations you have used it looks as though you have used Ilfords own figures which is fine. You say you have not enough contrast but the contrast looks OK to me. However, the shadows look a little too low which begs the question "How did you meter these subjects?"

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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