Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,388   Posts: 1,683,276   Online: 670
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,813
    Images
    300
    2F/2F makes a very good point.

    Light is important, and knowing what to do with it is everything. I stopped using the in-camera meter years ago, for the same reasons mentioned.
    "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

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ajman - U.A.E.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    That first picture you posted looks like you had a red filter or perhaps a polarizer on to darken the sky. Is that incorrect? I was just curious because I've noticed less response with Acros than with other films when using red and yellow filters.

    Edit: Thomas you are right. I always forget that my shooting, development regiment is quite different. I went the wrong way with the ISO in me head.
    Yes, all those shots are done with polarizer filter, that day i went out to shoot 5 films, 4 colors and 1 B&W which is this Acros, all done with CPL filter.

  3. #23
    Jerevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sweden/Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,922
    Images
    9
    Understanding the variables and the materials of the process is key. The in-camera meter (60/40 in my case) works really good, given that I still have to compromise with developing a whole roll of film at a set time. But I know how where to point the meter, apply the reading given and I know my film.

    But really, only a sheet of Kodak film, exposed with a Pentax spotmeter and lovingly developed by darkroom elves in spring water and pixie dust is good enough.
    “Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA; USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    2F/2F makes a very good point.

    Light is important, and knowing what to do with it is everything. I stopped using the in-camera meter years ago, for the same reasons mentioned.
    You folks both make great points.

    I stopped metering years ago: the Zone System gives us a great way to consider exposure/development/printing planning, but most affordable cameras aren't going to give us 1/3-stop precision. Therefore, I have spent many hours calibrating my eye, camera, film, paper & chemistries to the f/16 Rule and once you get there, it works great! When you see the finished print as you set up to make the exposure, it all become pretty intuitive.
    Cogito, ergo Bebop a Lula

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,911
    Pan F+ builds contrast quickly which can be a problem. I rate it at an EI of 32 to 40 and develop it in D-23 1+1.
    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

  6. #26
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,821
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicthumbs View Post
    Recently, I found out about Neopan Acros. I've seen various people calling it a wonder film, and started using it as my slow-speed landscape film instead of Pan F+.

    I've been having trouble getting results out of it like I have previously with Pan F. I've been developing it in Rodinal 1+50 and 1+100, stand and normal, and something still seems off about the tonality. This photo of mine (on Pan F, developed normally with Xtol) is exactly the kind of result I'm looking for, but I'm having trouble achieving similar results with Acros. I'm not sure, but could it be the result of developing it in high-dilution Rodinal? Could that increase the grain enough to change the character of the photo, even though Acros is still amazingly fine-grained?

    I have Rodinal and D76 ready to use, and Perceptol, Diafine, and Xtol ready to mix. Which of these two films do you guys prefer for landscapes, and why? What developers do you use with them, and how do you develop it?
    If you like Pan F+, try Rollei Retro 80S instead rated at 64 or 50, it's finer and sharper, and imho similar to Pan F+ but perhaps more like through a yellow filter.

    edit: didn't see it was such an ancient thread that had been dug up

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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