Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,319   Posts: 1,681,955   Online: 735
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,884
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    ...I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.
    Ralph, No offense but I disagree there is "no" degradation of the highlights. Even on this monitor I can see some highlight compression. Not bad but I wouldn't make a habit of overexposing.

  2. #12
    rwboyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MD USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I have some MF negatives of Yosemite taken after a snow storm, Tri-X shoot at 400 and developed in XTOL stock solution. One of Half Dome has a range of 12 stops. How do I know? I used my Nikon F100 in the spot meter mode and a 300mm lens to take light readings. The prints I made with simple dodging and burning were very good but not great. So I took the negatives to Per Volquartz for a day long class in printing. With a lot of work I produced a stunning photograph with the clouds slightly darker than the snow next to it on Half Dome and truly great shadow detail.

    Yes, I got a 12 stop range on film and I see that 14 stops is possible, but it takes work to get it to print on paper that does not have that wide a range.

    Steve
    No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

    If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

    RB

  3. #13
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,103
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    RB

    Try it by all means. Actually, I remember Kodak showing a sequence of up to 12 stops without any quality loss. I tried to behave myself with saying 8 stops. I don't have an 8-stop example around at the moment, but I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.
    so Ralph,

    when you overexpose sooooooo much(6 stops in this case),

    how do you factor development? I mean, its kind of hard to pull 6 stops in development....

    -Dan


  4. #14
    rwboyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MD USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    OK, we are on the same page then. I can put 12 stops on the film, but I cannot put 12 stops and then over expose by 8 stops.

    Steve
    Well - that is what somebody suggested that 8 stops OVEREXPOSURE is fine.

    RB

  5. #15
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,435
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1234 View Post
    Ralph, No offense but I disagree there is "no" degradation of the highlights. Even on this monitor I can see some highlight compression. Not bad but I wouldn't make a habit of overexposing.
    Trust me, there is no highlight compression in the actual prints. Anyway, the improvement in the shadows is significant. Even in these scans, the degration of the highlights is minor. The point was not to make a habit of it, the point was the latitude towards overexposure.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #16
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,100
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    All you nay sayers are missing the point here.

    The OP CAN'T adjust the exposure reliably.

    I'm with Ralph, any of the listed negative films will be quite printable, even with huge over-exposures.

    Would they be better close to their box speed? Probably, but so what.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #17
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,435
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by rwboyer View Post
    No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

    If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

    RB
    We are talking about exposure latitude towards overexposure. The example I posted was overexposed by 6 stops, true overexposure. The example I saw at Kodak was overexposed by 12 stops, true overexposure. Eventually the highlights will roll off and ruin highlight separation, which happens sooner with some films than others, but 6-12 stops true overexposure latitude is normal.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    36

    Can't Let It Go By

    Try FP4+ in Pyrocat (HD or MC) and compare to TMAX100 in XTOL 1:1

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,884
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Trust me, there is no highlight compression in the actual prints. Anyway, the improvement in the shadows is significant. Even in these scans, the degration of the highlights is minor. The point was not to make a habit of it, the point was the latitude towards overexposure.
    It's been a quarter century since I've shot and processed B&W for the shear joy of making fine prints. Overexposure and underdevelopment were part of my process along with selenium toning the film to extend highlight details more linearly than with development alone. Shadow details were excellent and highlights were open and very textured. I also selenium toned the prints which had a similar effect... darkening shadows without blocking them. I'm not against overexposure... just the sacrifice of highlight detail... unless those aren't present to begin with.

    Film was Agfapan 25 and 100 processed in Rodinal 1:50 (usually). Paper was Ilford Gallery DW fiber (grade 2 or 3 with the latter prefered) developed on Phenidol?... whatever Ilford's phenidone-base developer was called... and selenium toned for density and color.

    And I still say I can see a little highlight compression in those examples.
    Last edited by Mike1234; 01-03-2010 at 01:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,435
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    OK, we are on the same page then. I can put 12 stops on the film, but I cannot put 12 stops and then over expose by 8 stops.

    Steve
    Well, the exposure range of B&W negative film is 15 stops or more. Taking an average scene of 7 stops you can afford at least 8 stops in overexposure.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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