Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,166   Posts: 1,658,514   Online: 734
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,210
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielStone View Post
    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
    I try not to, but sometimes the light does.
    Regards

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

  2. #22
    rwboyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MD USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    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.
    I didn't miss any point anywhere I was just being a D**K about unqualified statements like 8 stops of overexposure is fine. Well if it really is over exposure (like 8 stops over the point where you have optimum shadow detail) and your scene is not one tone, it actually has a pretty good range to start with - then 8 stops is not "fine". Black and white film is fantastic in it's ability to put a huge range of EV on the negative but it does have a DMAX and a significant amount of typical scenes you might be shooting will reach that point easily if you really truly overexpose by 8 stops. Translation for the non-technical - if you really truly "overexpose" by 8 stops you will more likely than not actually block a significant amount of highlight values.

    RB

  3. #23
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,210
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    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.
    Exactly. We understand each other.
    Regards

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

  4. #24
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,210
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by rwboyer View Post
    Well - that is what somebody suggested that 8 stops OVEREXPOSURE is fine.

    RB
    Not fine, but the film can handle it, no probs.
    Regards

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

  5. #25
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,210
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1234 View Post
    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 phendone-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.
    Mike

    Don't be fooled by looking at scans on your monitor, which might be different than mine. You need to see the prints.
    Regards

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

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,884
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Mike... Don't be fooled by looking at scans on your monitor, which might be different than mine. You need to see the prints.
    If they were scanned separately you certainly have a point but if they were scanned simultaneously side-by-side then they definitely differ, IMHO. I'm not trying to argue but if they were scanned together then I can see the tonal compression in the highlights. However, I DON'T disagree that negative film can often be grossly overexposed and still make nice-looking prints. Or are you saying you scanned the film and not the prints... different story there.

    BTW, if one is scanning and printing digitally PS Curves can really work magic if one knows how to use that tool.
    Last edited by Mike1234; 01-03-2010 at 01:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,210
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by rwboyer View Post
    I didn't miss any point anywhere...
    I'm afraid, you did if you call my statement unqualified.

    Quote Originally Posted by rwboyer View Post
    ...Translation for the non-technical - if you really truly "overexpose" by 8 stops you will more likely than not actually block a significant amount of highlight values.
    No you won't. 7 stops of subject brightness range + 8 stops of overexposure = 15 stops of required film exposure range. Many B&W negative film can give you that easily unless you develop them to roll off the highlights.
    Regards

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

  8. #28
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,210
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1234 View Post
    If they were scanned separately you certainly have a point but if they were scanned simultaneously side-by-side then they definitely differ, IMHO. I'm not trying to argue but if they were scanned together then I can see the tonal compression in the highlights. However, I DON'T disagree that negative film can often be grossly overexposed and still make nice-looking prints.

    BTW, if one is scanning and printing digitally PS Curves can really work magic if one knows how to use that tool.
    They were scanned separately. My scanner is not that big.
    Regards

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

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,884
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    They were scanned separately. My scanner is not that big.
    Ahh... okay, then I'll take your word for it.

  10. #30
    rwboyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MD USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Not fine, but the film can handle it, no probs.
    Ralph,

    I do not mean any disrespect whatsoever - I like your work and generally think you probably know what you are doing and talking about.

    Now - without going to idiotic extremes to prove a point (like metering only the sky outside and setting your camera to what the meter "says") I dare anyone to load up any one of these films we are discussing. Set your camera's meter or any other meter for that mater to as low as it will go ISO wise (most meters will not even go low enough for 8 stops overexposure, mine goes to three) then add more exposure (3 stops in my case) - meter as you will usually do and shoot the scenes you normally shoot and then process as you normally process.

    I will personally guarantee you will end up with most of the highlights blocked no matter how you print - there will be no differentiation in lots and lots of highlight areas, probably even areas that should be "mids".

    And I am not even talking about overexposing based on true shadow speeds - let's just stick with "box" speed.

    Ralph if you are claiming that these three film have no DMAX that you are going to reach with 8 stops of even close to true overexposure I have to say that you are not correct and that that statement is at best misleading.

    RB

    Ps. I know that this diatribe has nothing to do with the OPs inability to control or even know what exposure is being obtained.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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