Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,702   Posts: 1,482,658   Online: 678
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,040
    I have to agree with Mikebarger 500%.

    Do a test for density to be sure exposure is right and then a series of development tests with your water, your thermometer, your agitation, and in=date developer.

    For what it is worth, Massive Chart always gives me way over dense neg. I don`t know where that info comes from. I have to be reasonably close because manufactures times are perfect for me. Massive has to be the problem.

    Also scanning is pretty worthless to detirmine if highlight density is correct.

    You are checking the meter, but how about the shutter ?

  2. #12
    aparat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    428
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Moravec View Post

    Also scanning is pretty worthless to detirmine if highlight density is correct.
    This is not quite true. In Vuescan, you can read density, and the measurements should be precise enough to judge potential exposure and/or development issues.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    south central Missouri
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,924
    Images
    9
    George

    To help me when I first started after finding my EI and correct development time, I printed nine zones (printed from nine different negatives). I cut a small square of each and carried them in the field with me. If I wanted to see what zone VI would look like, I checked the zone VI square.

    It helped me get use to the different zones and visualize the outcome.

    Mike

  4. #14
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    Thanks everyone for the comments.

    Edge borders look good and clean, dilution was 40ml to 2000ml of water (1:50) and the other roll of film in the tank looks a quite contrasty but not as dense. Metering was off the side of the building and sky, using the lessor of the two since there are no significant shadow areas with detail to be had. I didn't have a chance to check my meter today, but hopefully will tomorrow.

    So, using the old rule "when in doubt, assume you are the error" I pulled out my notebook with data (doesn't everyone use a log on all shots not 35mm) and sure enough, f/8 at 1/125 of a second with a K2 yellow filter. Way overexposed. Assuming my meter is accurate (which is a big assumption that I can check tomorrow), it means I have difficulty with basic f-stop math and need to take more time prior to releasing the shutter.

    That said, I do think there is a more contrast than I like in my negatives, so I am going to get one of Fred Picker's books and do some testing. I also think I might alter my agitation schedule but only once I can test efficiently.

    Again, thank-you everyone.
    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

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,095
    Images
    270
    Don't be hard on yourself. I bought a tele connection on my multisix Gossen meter. I had no idea I had to compensate by 1.5 stops for having it on (less light meant the meter was always giving a reading with longer shutter speeds than it should..but I didn't know that)....one six months later and a bunch of testing to work out why I was over exposing...I discovered it while messing around on my bed one evening...can not even come close to describing how much of an idiot I fealt...I have been so ashamed that this is the first time I have told anyone about it :rolleyes:
    Kal Khogali

    www.kal-khogali.com


    Visit my Photo Scrap Book

    www.shutteringeye.wordpress.com


    "Wake up, dream, and photograph what you have seen.
    Don't wake up, photograph, and dream of what could have been."

  6. #16
    Jerevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,812
    Images
    9
    From my own experience, doing inversions every 10 sec with Rodinal 1:50 dilution for 15 minutes would give me too dense negatives. My times are more like 13 minutes with Tri-X 400 at 250. 15 minutes would work with a more gentle agitation.
    “Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu

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