Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,915   Posts: 1,521,765   Online: 1074
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,623
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Do you know the double-exposure trick from Fred Picker? Shoot the forest on partly cloudy day. Wait for bright sunshine and expose just enough to properly expose the highlights. Then wait for cloud cover to make the sun disappear and expose again, longer for the shadows.
    I have not read any of Picker's stuff, but I have done similar things -- for example, I find that a partially cloud-blocked sun is fun to work with. Also when making long exposures under the redwoods, the sunlit areas move around wonderfully...I have made many relatively short exposures onto a sheet of film, allowing the light to shift and change between each exposure, sort of like painting with light.

    Vaughn

    Scanned 5x7 carbon print:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails WSRedwoodSunlightJune.jpg  
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  2. #32
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Ahh, but, dear Bill Burk, the grade two is subjective!!
    I could clarify. I use Ilford Galerie 2 and 3, which is different from all the rest.

    My plan to make easy to print negatives is obvious. I picked two negatives that made me sweat when I was printing them. One a little "hot" for Grade 2 and one very thin that barely made it onto Grade 3. If I never have to print a negative worse than those, I'll be happy.

    I made my target right in the middle of those two negs. Next thing I knew, I ran out of Grade 2 paper.
    Last edited by Bill Burk; 11-29-2011 at 11:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #33
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,623
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I could clarify. I use Ilford Galerie 2 and 3, which is different from all the rest.

    My plan to make easy to print negatives is obvious. I picked two negatives that made me sweat when I was printing them. One a little "hot" for Grade 2 and one very thin that barely made it onto Grade 3. If I never have to print a negative worse than those, I'll be happy...
    Have you tried to split the grades using two developers; Selectol-soft followed by Dektol? Nice for those negs that fall between Grades 2 and 3. I have selenium toned negs to bump up their contrast a half-grade also.

    And I have been known to bump up contrast by giving a light bleaching to well-exposed but low contrast negatives to deepen the blacks -- then selenium tone to boost up the highlights. But this was for contact printing using non-silver processes.

    Galerie Grade 3 Glossy was my main paper/grade for neutral toned images back in my silver gelatin days...20 yrs or so ago (Portriga Rapid 111, Grade 3 for warm tone images).
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by dpgoldenberg View Post
    There is nothing magical about a gamma of 1. Gamma is the slope of the linear region of the characteristic curve when the exposure is plotted on a log base 2 scale versus density, which is a log base 10 scale of the fraction of light transmitted. The numerical value of the slope depends on the bases of the two logarithmic scales, which are arbitrary: 2 because we like to think in terms of doublings and 10 because that's how many fingers most of us have.

    David
    Oops! This is not quite right. Gamma is the slope of the linear region the exposure is plotted on a log base 10 scale. So, gamma=1 does have special significance: A ten-fold increase in exposure results in a 10-fold reduction in the fraction of light that passes through the negative. But, I think that my original point remains valid, there is no simple or general relationship between gamma and human visual perception.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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