Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,202   Posts: 1,531,582   Online: 1111
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242

    Maximum black concerns

    For myself, I am not concerned at all wether or not maximum black is created on the film edge being exposed. I would very much reccomend that you print for no more blackness than is neccessary to produce the print that you find pleasing. In my opinion worrying about maximum black is a very good way to end up with shadow detail not being visible. If you find that the unexposed film ege always is less than maximum it may well mean that you are underexposing your negatives. Lower your meter setting by 1/3 and if inadequate by 1/2 stop and see if you find that a fair percentage of your prints that show an unexposed film edge are now maximum black.

  2. #12
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    For myself, I am not concerned at all wether or not maximum black is created on the film edge being exposed. I would very much reccomend that you print for no more blackness than is neccessary to produce the print that you find pleasing. In my opinion worrying about maximum black is a very good way to end up with shadow detail not being visible.
    I agree - TOTALLY!!!
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    188
    I don't want to spoil your experience. But why are you trying so hard to make a great print out of an underxposed negative? It just doesn't make sense to me. I only contact print because I love simplicity. If a negative doesn't print great and feel that I would have to work a lot to get a decent print, I throw that lousy negative in the trash bin with absolutely no regrets. If I can shoot it again I will, otherwise I am still happy.
    If you can shoot it again, pick a negative with a straight curve like efke80 and expose heavily fot those shadows to have separation. You can't have lots of clear areas in your negatives and still hope for rich shadows.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Lobsta
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    566
    What Christian said! Are your negatives adequately exposed? Or are your shadows compressed in the toe area? The first step is to get the information onto the negative.
    My Verito page

    Anyone can appreciate a fine print. But it takes a real photographer to appreciate a fine negative.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    653
    Christian,

    The negative which prompted my question required a 3 1/2 hour exposure @ f11.5. What would have been sufficient to "juice" the shadows ...6 hrs? ...10 hrs? I needed the fstop for DOF, so opening up wasn't an option.

    The point is, we're a diverse group here with diverse shooting styles and, sometimes, specialized technical needs. Not everyone is out there shooting decently lit landscapes.

    -Michael

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    463
    Images
    6
    "In order to get max black on paper"

    What idiot told you that you have to get maximum black on your paper? Some joker like those who think you also need maximum paper white?

    Print for a convincing black & the best print possible, not to an engineering scale.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    1
    maybe he wants black for the athestics of his picture... although I do agree with what War' wrote in general.

    you could always frame it in pure white matt and it will look 'blacker'

  8. #18
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    This is precisely why I like warmtone papers and lith printing (not necessarily at the same time). The browns of a good warmtone print seems to have more separation than the greys of a neutral print, even if the deltaD is actually lower. Lith print for the same reason - pull the print just before the blacks go black, and you have max separation.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    653
    Good god, what a bizarre reaction this question (belatedly) sparked.

    Look folks, I simply wanted suggestions on how to separate areas of thinnest negative density from base fog most effectively on paper. That's all. You guys are spending way too much time answering questions I never asked, i.e, whether I should want to do so, or should have produced a stronger negative to start with.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    653
    "The browns of a good warmtone print seems to have more separation than the greys of a neutral print"

    That's my impression as well, Ole. One of my recent frustrations is that I've tried to work with more neutral toned paper and I find "fudged black" to just look thin and dusty on it.

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