Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,925   Posts: 1,556,779   Online: 1015
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    344
    I know it's too late now, but I've honestly liked the color cast of underexposed 160VC, although more like 2/3 stop than 1 full stop. I guess I would've tried developing this roll normally.

  2. #12
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by mtjade2007 View Post
    The most obvious is that the shadow basically has nothing but deep black there.
    I wouldn't be too hard on the film.

    Development (mostly) controls where the highlights fall, and it does affect midtones a midlin' amount, but the black point doesn't change much. No amount of push can get back "lost" shadow details.

    Exposure almost exclusively controls the black point's placement on the film's curve. There's probably no shadow detail simply because the shutter closed too soon.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    310
    It's a good lesson learned for me. I now don't believe print films can be pushed. Thanks for confirming it. Fortaunately I realized that I underexposed it at the end of the roll. So I loaded another roll, a 400VC, and re-shot whatever was still possible. I will develop that roll next weekend and see what I will get out of it.

  4. #14
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    mtjade2007,

    I learned the under-exposure lesson the hard way too. (Same for B&W BTW.)

    As to the the color shifting, that is to be expected with underexposure.

    With color film you are actually dealing with 3 separate exposures; red, green, and blue. Shadows are typically bluish. Even if you, your meter, gets the reds and greens right, if the blues end up way down on the toe of the curve you have a problem with color balance. The raw, uncorrected scans may even show this in a histogram; blues left, reds right.

    Much of this is correctable in the enlarger or elsewhere but, just like any other deviation we make in photography, it does require work and adjustments.

    Ansel used "Expansion and Contraction", which are the same chemical processes as "push and pull" but his aim was different, he wanted to improve a negative's contrast to make printing easier, he was not trying to push the film so that he could underexpose, i.e. use a faster shutter speed.

    The trick to using a push or pull is knowing what is going to happen before hand, an option you did not have with this roll.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #15
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Push processing is not the culprit to blocked shadows. You would have even more blocked shadows if you didn't push process.

    Some people like blocked shadows (heck, that's the standard way with di**tal!), some people don't. Color neg films are designed to give average, usually enough detail in shadows at box speeds. Some people who want more shadow detail, will overexpose. Some people, who don't need shadow detail but want higher midtones (like the sky) to "pop", will underexpose the films.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    mtjade2007,

    With color film you are actually dealing with 3 separate exposures; red, green, and blue. Shadows are typically bluish. Even if you, your meter, gets the reds and greens right, if the blues end up way down on the toe of the curve you have a problem with color balance. The raw, uncorrected scans may even show this in a histogram; blues left, reds right.

    The trick to using a push or pull is knowing what is going to happen before hand, an option you did not have with this roll.
    That's indeed what I see in the histogram in my images. The shadow is way too dark (and bluish). Photoshop shows a lot more blue than R and G there. When I used Photoshop level tool to reduce the blue in the shadow and also increase the blue in the highlight the images looked much more balanced. The images are too contrasty still though.

    Yes, I now realize that push processing is not going to save the shadows. I actually think it only increases contrast as a result. It will also make scanning much more challenging. I don't know why some people want the shadows blocked when shooting Portra films. They could easily achieve that by shooting d***tal indeed.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by naugastyle View Post
    I know it's too late now, but I've honestly liked the color cast of underexposed 160VC, although more like 2/3 stop than 1 full stop. I guess I would've tried developing this roll normally.
    This will fall into a more innovative or creative photography category to explore. I see what you mean by that. I think I have much to play with my entire roll and see what I can get out of it.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    344
    I'm sure it doesn't ALWAYS work but here are a few I liked underexposed:





    But sometimes I think my eye is backwards to other people's because I also tend NOT to agree that overexposure increases saturation, as is conventional wisdom. To me underexposure usually looks nice.

    Oh, unless it's Superia 1600, don't ever underexpose that. Godawful.

  9. #19
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by naugastyle View Post
    I also tend NOT to agree that overexposure increases saturation, as is conventional wisdom.
    I agree with you. Conventional wisdom? I've heard that misconception only twice. Maybe I've been lucky.

    Overexposure makes contrast and saturation softer as the image is nearer to the shoulder area, or in the shoulder. It's lower in contrast. Of course, if this is compensated by using higher-contrast paper or adjusting levels in digital post-process, then the shadows, being in the higher-contrast mid-tones, can become much harder in contrast. So, in some cases, some areas of image may actually get higher in contrast, but in general, overexposing is the contrast and saturation reduction knob in C-41.

  10. #20
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by mtjade2007 View Post
    I actually think it only increases contrast as a result.
    That is exactly the result of pushing.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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