Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,661   Posts: 1,481,602   Online: 938
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    ann
    ann is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,856
    Images
    26
    the old time press guys, did just that. pre-flash some film and carried it around for that special lighting challenge. Of course this was done with the use of speed graflex's.

  2. #12
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,365
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    154
    This is a card I have in my hand that I hadn't played in years until about 2 weeks ago. I was doing a shot of a banquet group of about 120 optical folks in Las Vegas. All optical experts. No pressure at all. I had the Nikon digital (hell, I'm not crazy) and the 7X17 Folmer & Schwing set up. When I measured my spread in the AM sun for the B&W pic it was like 5 stops from zone 3 shadow to where the people in sunlight would be. I carry an old Polaroid flash diffuser with me just in case I need it. Took a reading through the diffuser with the spot meter and then put it over the lens and exposed through it for Z 1 1/2 a few minutes before the group arrived. Then when my group was in place I exposed as normal. As a result I got a great neg with excellent shadow detail and nice highlights also. Wish I had the Polaroid number of that piece, but here is a picture of one on an old 195 flash.

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/c6_1.jpg

    Jorge, how do you include html in these posts?

  3. #13
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I've been reading this thread with interest.
    For me, pre-flashing *film* is not a viable option: it would mean re-rolling 120 - something I have never been able to do.

    I *do* pre-flash paper - especially color paper. It is a "very" effective way to control and modify excessive contrast.

    More and more, I'm gravitating toward "pure" negatives. I have softeners and all sorts of pre-lens filter, and the only ones I use are a few - very few - black and white; orange, green and, of course Red #25 (always with IR) and then on a very limited basis.

    Where I do "soften" is in the enlarger. I have found in printing, that a "softener" over the enlarging lens can effectively reduce apparent "grain" (every once in a while I'll go through a Keystone Kops routine trying to use the grain focuser with a softening filter in place - there just isn't any "grain" to focus upon).

    My favorite developer is Rodinal - and it is a "clean" developer - its action is not to increase grain size - but to present it with extreme efficiency. There is no 'smearing' of grain boundaries- the *big* secret of so-called "fine grain" developers. Everyone agrees to this: Excellent tonality - at the price of "baseball-sized" grain ... but ... I can make the "grain" go away with enlarger filtration.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #14
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,072
    For me, pre-flashing *film* is not a viable option: it would mean re-rolling 120 - something I have never been able to do.
    Ed - not sure what you mean? Do you mean pre-flashing the whole roll? I use roll film and only pre-flash the frame I'm using through a double exposure (1. flash, 2. image), some images will be pre-flashed on the roll, others wont be. Have i missed your point?

    cheers

    Leon

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,257
    Images
    2
    jim:

    the diffusion device looks similar to what i have for my lumedyne - i think it is called " the tupperware lid"

    ed: i know the person i spoke with ( also ed ) spoke about pre-exposing on frame by frame basis - by double-exposing and shifting where "zones of detail" would be. he used to do it with both color chrome film and b&w film. i know what you mean about re-rolling film. i used to use a yashica-mat double and did a bunch of double-exposed images. no re-wind button, and it *was* a royal pain in the neck to re-roll. nothing ever alligned the way i wanted.


    this is great! its good to know this technique is still alive and well, and when i eventually try "pre-flash" work, i can ask for some useful advice from people who do it

    (i wish i had known about this before when i had lighting-conditons-from-hell to deal with.)

  6. #16
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian
    ed: i know the person i spoke with ( also ed ) spoke about pre-exposing on frame by frame basis - by double-exposing and shifting where "zones of detail" would be.
    I *had* envisioned this as a "whole roll" exercise. Frame by frame would be awkward with the Hasselblad, having to work around the double exposure prevention, - I'd have to expose, and not rewind; replace the darkslide, remove the magazine, rewind and replace the magazine and re-expose. Awkward, but possible.

    I'd much rather capture as much information as possible on the film, and manipulate it afterwards in the enlarger .. that would keep my options open.

    Color film, especially. has the ability to capture a wide range of values ... I would estimate from 8 to 12 "stops". Color paper, generally, cannot handle that much, - so preflashing becomes a viable tool.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  7. #17
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,072
    is there really no option for a double exposure on a HAssleblad? I'm amazed - the mighty beast perhaps isnt quite as mighty as I first thought

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,257
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian
    ed: i know the person i spoke with ( also ed ) spoke about pre-exposing on frame by frame basis - by double-exposing and shifting where "zones of detail" would be.
    I *had* envisioned this as a "whole roll" exercise. Frame by frame would be awkward with the Hasselblad, having to work around the double exposure prevention, - I'd have to expose, and not rewind; replace the darkslide, remove the magazine, rewind and replace the magazine and re-expose. Awkward, but possible.

    I'd much rather capture as much information as possible on the film, and manipulate it afterwards in the enlarger .. that would keep my options open.

    Color film, especially. has the ability to capture a wide range of values ... I would estimate from 8 to 12 "stops". Color paper, generally, cannot handle that much, - so preflashing becomes a viable tool.
    i assisted a fashion/portrait/annual report guy in the 80s - he had a hasselblad --- i used to double expose everything for him. needlesstosay, i don't think his 'blad's double exposure preventure was up to snuff

    ed, i can show you how it is done!

  9. #19
    Seele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    194
    In Popular Photography, June 1976, there's an article by Bob Schwalberg on an invention by Melrose R. Cole, of MA, which he called CPA (Concurrent Photon Amplification) and took six years to develop. It requires a camera with focal plane shutter to be modified to have a number of small light bulbs put into the dark chamber, which gives a correct dose of uniform non-image light on the film. At the time Cole charged $750 for the conversion.

    The Photography How-To Guide, summer 1978, also has an article by Gerry Kopelow, not only as a follow-up, but also details the method of constructing your own, using components available off-the-shelf at the time.

    The original Cole design used filament lamps which have to take moment to warm up to the correct output level, so a mechanical arrangement was made to fit over the shutter release button; you press it down to activate the bulbs, and further pressure hits the shutter release. The Kopelow version employed LEDs which give instantaneous response.

    With the availability of smaller and more power-efficient parts, I feel that an updated design can make a lot of sense, now, who is ready to rise to the challenge?

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