Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,421   Online: 807
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by erikg View Post
    I never bother with Kodak's dilutions with HC-110. I just use a couple that are easy to mix. Usually 1:50. But anyway, sure looks like under exposure to me. Your light source is above and behind your subject which can give some pretty empty shadows.
    I am leaning towered the side of underexposure on my part of shooting the pictures.

    The only thing that does not match up is the fact there are no parts of the negative that are very dinse.

  2. #22
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,219
    Images
    64
    My understanding has always been that "Dilution H" is totally unofficial and not part of Kodak's documentation. I usually back down a bit from box speed (320 for a nominal 400, 80 for a nominal 100) and agitate for the first 30 seconds (with a couple of raps on the table for bubbles) then 5 seconds per minute (5 inversions with a few degrees rotation between) for the rest of the time. I would not expect to push with that dilution.

  3. #23
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by cjbecker View Post
    I would [was?] using a incident meter and was metering for the bright side of the face to get acceptable shutter speeds. Would that been enough to make the negatives this un dense? I hope the problem was my metering because hc 110 is very nice to use.
    The proper way to incident meter for the bright side of the face (which appears to be away from the camera, and toward the light in the background) would be to hold the dome at the face pointed toward the light source behind the subject. But why meter for the bright side of the face when you're photographing the dark side? This would absolutely underexpose the side of the face toward the camera, even if you 'like' the shutter speeds better.

    Proper use of the incident meter would be to hold the light meter at the face and point the dome toward the camera lens. I know there are those on APUG who say proper incident meter use is to point the incident meter dome toward the main light source. You have just demonstrated the problem with that recommendation. Point the incident meter dome from the position of the subject toward the camera lens. My guess is that would have given you a couple of stops more exposure.

    HC-110 is a decent developer, and versatile, but it's not the best push developer.

    Lee

  4. #24
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    The reason I had to meter for the dark side is because I was handholding a 500cm with a 80 2.8 at 1/30, If I was going to meter the other side I would have been at 1/8 or 1/15 and its just a little slow.

  5. #25
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Dilution H to push to 640 is not a problem. It is actually a good technique to use in some cases, IMO. HP5 can really block up in the very highest tones when you push. I find using dil. H preferable to using dil. B to push if shooting in mostly-flat light with bright areas also within the composition. It supports the lower tones and middle tones better and does not blast the highest tones too badly. You pay with more grain and longer developing times. I will usually rate my HP5 at 500, and sometimes at 1000 when using dilution H; then I will push with longer development times. It is a good way to give the film a little punch without having the pix overwhelmed by the high tones.

    About the metering, if you meter the lit side of the face and don't include it in the frame, then you get underexposed people in the pix. It looks like that is what happened here. There isn't any of the direct light (which you metered) on the parts of the subjects that we see in the pic. It is all reflected.

    With an incident meter, you would measure the light that is illuminating the part of the subject that you want to expose properly. So, in this case, you'd point the dome toward the light that is reflecting back on to your subjects. With light that perfectly even (from a very broad reflected source, such as the walls, floor, and ceiling), you'd just point the meter roughly toward the camera. If that gives you an exposure that you cannot pull off hand held, that's that, unless you can increase the light on your subjects.

    The level of light is a physical fact, as is the sensitivity of your film. Cheating shutter speeds by metering in a brighter area so that you can shoot hand held does not change these physical facts. It just underexposes your film. If you cannot add light, there isn't much you can do aside from loading some Delta 3200 (actually ISO 1000 film with very broad exposure latitude) and/or using a tripod. I would have shot 35mm for these shots, since most normal lenses for that format would have given you at least an extra stop – two extra in many cases (f/1.4 lenses). I also probably would have used Delta 3200 even if using 35mm and a fast lens.

    To print these, I'd try jacking up the contrast heavily (at least 4, but probably maxed out) and using the maximum aperture on your enlarger lens to start your test strips.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 02-11-2011 at 12:22 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #26
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,206
    Images
    296
    And therein lies the problem.

    You underexposed.
    A lot.

    If you had your meter set at EI 640, and you metered incorrectly away from the camera lens toward the main light in the background, you probably shot the film at EI 3200, or 3 stops underexposed.

    I will bet you that if you do the Sunny 16 test that I recommended, you will find that your film will process just fine at Dilution H, at the processing time you gave it.

    If you can't hand hold it, you have to use a tripod.
    Or accept blurry pictures.
    But you have to get enough light onto the film.



    Quote Originally Posted by cjbecker View Post
    The reason I had to meter for the dark side is because I was handholding a 500cm with a 80 2.8 at 1/30, If I was going to meter the other side I would have been at 1/8 or 1/15 and its just a little slow.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #27
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    And therein lies the problem.

    You underexposed.
    A lot.

    If you had your meter set at EI 640, and you metered incorrectly away from the camera lens toward the main light in the background, you probably shot the film at EI 3200, or 3 stops underexposed.

    I will bet you that if you do the Sunny 16 test that I recommended, you will find that your film will process just fine at Dilution H, at the processing time you gave it.

    If you can't hand hold it, you have to use a tripod.
    Or accept blurry pictures.
    But you have to get enough light onto the film.
    I have a roll that I am doing to develop later today that I shot sunny 16 on.

    So are you saying to shoot at 400 iso with the new test film and develop the same as before? Develop for 800 or develop for 400.

  8. #28
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,206
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by cjbecker View Post
    I have a roll that I am doing to develop later today that I shot sunny 16 on.

    So are you saying to shoot at 400 iso with the new test film and develop the same as before? Develop for 800 or develop for 400.
    If you want to use HP5 at 640/800 you should expose it as such. That's the speed you were intending to use the film at when you stated your problem. You should shoot it at the same speed where you had the problem, just to prove (or disprove) that the exposure is the problem.

    If you shoot it at 400, you're not addressing any of the issues you had to begin with. Troubleshooting is about taking one variable out of the scenario at a time, and otherwise do everything else exactly the same. No cheating on this. If you try to adjust more than one parameter, you will never be able to tell with certainty what went wrong to begin with, in case your actions fix the problem.
    And then you end up not learning anything.

    So, shoot the film at the speed where it didn't work out for you, but using Sunny 16 in broad daylight. Develop the film exactly as you did last time without changing a single thing.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    Well when a scale is chosen arbitrarily (letters), and that scale usually follows a sequence (alphabetical order), one should be able to reasonably assume that there is some logical order to it. Only 2 dilutions don't follow the pattern; C & H.

    Plus given Kodak's reputation for mistakes in their literature...
    I thought long and hard about what reply I could make on the danger of making assumptions. I decided that I would let the expert logician make it for me, "My dear Watson - assume nothing."
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #30
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,418
    Images
    2
    Well, surely you know what happens when assumptions are made?

    It makes an ass out of u and me.

    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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