Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,302   Posts: 1,536,192   Online: 702
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    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.

  2. #32
    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.

  3. #33
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,464
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by rwboyer View Post
    ...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

    That's exactly what I'm saying, and it is correct and hopefully not misleading. Here is my proof:

    Attached are two Kodak Tmax-400 graphs. The first is from Kodak from their tech-publication F4043 and shows that this film is able to reach a Dmax well over 3.2 without ever showing a shoulder. The second is from one of my tests over an exposure range of 16 stops. I took a different developer and a different time than Kodak but got to a similar Dmax, and again without a shoulder. The film will show a shoulder eventually, of course, but not over this range. This film is able to capture a normal subject brightness range of 7 stops, and still be overexposed by 9 stops or more without compressing the highlight detail. Not that I wold do that, because this film would be very hard to print and EIs of 1 are no fun to expose, but it can be done without the disadvantages you claim. By the way, TriX is almost as good but shows the first signs of a shoulder at a density of 3.2. PlusX shows a shoulder at about 2.7. Delta 100 is similar to PlusX and Neopan similar to TriX in Dmax. FP4 might be the exception, but HP5 will work.

    Convinced?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tmax400-F4043.jpg   TmaxRange.jpg  
    Last edited by RalphLambrecht; 01-03-2010 at 02:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Regards

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

  4. #34
    rwboyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MD USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    RB

    That's exactly what I'm saying, and it is correct and hopefully not misleading. Here is my proof:

    Attached are two Kodak Tmax-400 graphs. The first is from Kodak from their tech-publication F4043 and shows that this film is able to reach a Dmax well over 3.2 without ever showing a shoulder. The second is from one of my tests over an exposure range of 16 stops. I took a different developer and a different time than Kodak but got to a similar Dmax, and again without a shoulder. The film will show a shoulder eventually, of course, but not over this range. This film is able to capture a normal subject brightness range of 7 stops, and still be overexposed by 9 stops or more without compressing the highlight detail. Not that I wold do that, because this film would be very hard to print and EIs of 1 are no fun to expose, but it can be done without the disadvantages you claim. By the way, TriX is almost as good but shows the first signs of a shoulder at a density of 3.2. PlusX shows a shoulder at about 2.7. Delta 100 is similar to PlusX and Neopan similar to TriX in Dmax. FP4 might be the exception, but HP5 will work.

    Convinced?
    Nope.

    Instead of us both adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers together to prove various points I'll send you a negative that I "accidentally" overexpose by 8 stops without really trying to shoulder it on purpose or anything and an identical one that has decent zone III and IV shadow detail of the same scene as soon as I have some time.

    IF you cannot see the difference in highlight separation/compression from one to the other with your eyes I will retract my statement that 8 stops overexposure is NOT "fine".

    Peace

    RB

  5. #35
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,464
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by rwboyer View Post
    Nope.

    Instead of us both adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers together to prove various points I'll send you a negative that I "accidentally" overexpose by 8 stops without really trying to shoulder it on purpose or anything and an identical one that has decent zone III and IV shadow detail of the same scene as soon as I have some time.

    IF you cannot see the difference in highlight separation/compression from one to the other with your eyes I will retract my statement that 8 stops overexposure is NOT "fine".

    Peace

    RB

    RB

    I don't doubt that you have a different experience. Some emulsion don't reach quite a high of a Dmax, and if there is not enough developing agent in the mix, the shoulder will roll off even sooner. But the data I have posted is not arbitrary. This is manufacturer data and actual test results, and it shows curves without highlight compression up to a 16 stop range. If that doesn't convince you, I have to give up and move on.

    All the best.
    Regards

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

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    The way you asked the question, you'll get four groups of people all voting for their favorite film. The truth is, all B&W films have an enormous latitude towards overexposure. You can print these films even if overexposed by several stops (4-8 stops no problem). You will have to live with long exposure times in the darkroom, but you will be rewarded with great shadow detail. Underexposure is a different matter. There is no latitude towards underexposure, unless you are willing to give up some shadow detail.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    This is great advise for the younger B&W photographer! I personally shoot a full stop stronger, and use filters in the darkroom to create contrast. To obtain true black and pure white. An under exposed or developed film will be a very boring gray. I am still a fan of D-76 developer used with Ilford delta 100 film.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225

    fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

    *scratches head*

    I don't think this is helping Dennis the beginner, too much tech speak and argumentative back and forth.

    Just sayin' get a room boys


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  9. #39
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    The last post in this thread was over a year ago.
    No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225

    fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim View Post
    The last post in this thread was over a year ago.
    Haha this app I use displays the dates ultra small and I found this thread searching for opinions on the films before I test the top few I like personally. I hate testing a million films because unlike everyone else I test by taking a boring picture of a sign with the ISO written on it and bracket, and do this with all the films so it's like I have to waste 8 rolls... Ugh haha


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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