Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,826   Posts: 1,582,032   Online: 793
      
Page 10 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314151620 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 228
  1. #91
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    D F Cardwell did an article here on APUG way back when that had a big effect on how I thought about metering, developing, and curves. He pegged his curves to the mid-tone in the scene, the most important area to him, and most portraitists, and street shooters, and a few others, rather than to the toe which is more important to Zoners, West Coasters, and a great many landscapers.

    That article laid the foundation that Dunn & Wakefield's Exposure Manual built upon later.

    In the comments to that article you can see several participants asking for un-slid curves. These participants are, IMO, essentially asking for help to square DF's ideas with their reality.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...-negative.html

    One of the participants in that discussion 2F/2F, in this thread http://www.apug.org/forums/forum48/9...after-all.html , suggested adjusting the orientation of the incident meter head, rather than keeping the head pointed at the camera. At that point in time I was really having a tough time wrapping my head around that thought. It took a couple years for that to really settle in. Again it was Dunn & Wakefield's Exposure Manual built upon that later.

    Once understood the utility of both of those concepts are really easy to use, very practical, and truly useful in making printing easier and more standard in relation to the original intent when shot.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  2. #92
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    [QUOTE=Stephen Benskin;1449218]
    If one camp claims exposure meters "read" 18% and another 12%, shouldn't a person have the intellectual curiosity to investigate?
    No, not if they do not wish to take themselves to that level just to improve their photographic skills, it's not a crime. Having one meter and using it intellegently and consistently is the key. I personally don't give a rats ass what my Pentax V spot meter is calilbrated for, my photography in know way is dependent upon knowing it. You get yourself up in arms waaaaaaayyyy too much any time the words "film test" is mentioned in a thread title.

    How many of the people who do Zone System type testing ask themselves why their EIs are almost universally 1/2 to one stop slower than the ISO speed?
    Again, it is not a crime to not have a burning passion to know "why", knowing that it "could be" different and knowing "how" to determine it within the confines of their tools and working process has, for decades, worked so friggin well for many folks. Channeling one's passion into knowing "how" to make themselves better is no less an act of self-help than also laboring on the intricacies of the "why". So, any time a person wants to talk about film speed testing for "their" needs, it would be just grand if you would just once, provide some simple words of advice, rather than use it as a step ladder to a soap box. Not everybody needs to get neck deep with "battery" testing to make themselves and their photography better.

    No malice in these words man, just an opinion. Perhaps take advantage of APUG and write a series of articles on, not only the "how" of things, but also on the nuance, the minutiae or all the little "whys" that can, so often, muddy the stream of consciousness thinking that goes into simply making an expressive image. Confine the spirit of the articles to what you do for yourself, not what you think we all need to be doing. I will read them and take interest in what you do.

    Chuck

  3. #93
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Yes Steven you are right. But...
    Not everybody has the will or discipline to find the "why". Starting out one doesn't have a clue where to start so one has to rely on information coming from others. Some find it damn boring trying to find the why.
    It takes time and money to find all this. I have little of both.
    I do believe we may get blinded from all the information out there, while looking for that magic potion.
    How often have I told people to read the Technical Pages published by manufacturers. Either they don't have the nerve or don't know they excist.
    Yes to Bill with the filters, thank goodness I don't use filters that mush, lazy me. But when one has a sound idea how the film react I think not that much can go wrong. Besides when in doubt I just take two photos the second one with a half or full stop more and according to the first film change the processing of the second one as needed.
    We still have multigrade to save us.
    This is the perfect argument for following the manufacture's instructions and using an incident meter.

    That is not a critisism. It is an acknowledgement of just how good Film and Incident meter makers are at their jobs.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #94
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Chuck, as usual you've completely missed my point. I won't try to explain how because it wouldn't do any good.

    My posts tend to be about what I think is missed in the discussions. If you are not interested in the topic you don't have to read them. I really don't need your opinion on what and how I should contribute.

  5. #95
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    This is the perfect argument for following the manufacture's instructions and using an incident meter.

    That is not a critisism. It is an acknowledgement of just how good Film and Incident meter makers are at their jobs.
    I agree.

    AndreasT

    Starting out one doesn't have a clue where to start so one has to rely on information coming from others.
    I try to referrence my statements and I have posted hard to find seminal papers. There are lots of knowledgeable people on this forum. Many of them are here because they love the medium and wish to give back. They are a great resource.

  6. #96
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Chuck, as usual you've completely missed my point. I won't try to explain how because it wouldn't do any good.

    My posts tend to be about what I think is missed in the discussions. If you are not interested in the topic you don't have to read them. I really don't need your opinion on what and how I should contribute.
    With all the passion I can muster, please know that your point has not been missed! Trust me on that one Stephen. Have a good day and I look forward to reading your articles.

  7. #97
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,564
    Images
    46
    I have two bulk loaders sitting on my desk awaiting speed tests before I use the film inside them... I expect APX-25 to be still good though expired '97 don't know about the 100

  8. #98
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,564
    Images
    46
    We do pretty well until someone says "it doesn't matter to me"

    When what should have been said is "for my purposes, the difference is so small as to be inconsequential" (to paraphrase Todd-Zakia)

    For every argument that "it doesn't matter" I am pleased to find an exceptional case where "it does matter"... and the key here for all us is to remain open. Think for yourself.. Does it matter to you?

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Going back to the earlier reference to "minimum exposure to maximum black", not that I ever used this method anyway, I found Richard Henry's experiments regarding that methodology quite interesting. It may or may not work better with current VC papers in comparison to the graded papers Henry used for the tests, but there are still variables to be considered, and they are pretty much never discussed.

  10. #100
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Going back to the earlier reference to "minimum exposure to maximum black", not that I ever used this method anyway, I found Richard Henry's experiments regarding that methodology quite interesting. It may or may not work better with current VC papers in comparison to the graded papers Henry used for the tests, but there are still variables to be considered, and they are pretty much never discussed.
    Michael, thanks for jumping back in and for the Henry reference. Since Henry was evaluating the method as a way to determine a standard printing time and not as a way to confirm / determine film speed, he obviously didn't test the effectiveness for that purpose. He does have some interesting data on the the consistency of maximum black between paper grades. Notice how he mentions the effects of color temperature with both the response of the film and meter when describing the film testing part of the standard printing time test? He also graphs the effectiveness of the standard printing time method showing whether the the method is able to achieve its intended results. His scientific background is definitely apparent.

    As you wrote earlier, Henry wrote this book as a reaction to the misinformation he saw in popular photographic literature. Similarly, Mike Johnston once told me that Phil Davis never read any of the articles written by other authors in PHOTO Techniques because he couldn't stand all the bad information.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-19-2013 at 09:37 PM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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