Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,973   Posts: 1,632,773   Online: 983
      
Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161721 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 224
  1. #101
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,916
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Kenton,

    Glad your getting something out of this.

    Refining the print process is quite a process. There are some tools that can really help.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=koda...on+print+scale these can be found here on occasion or on eBay.

    Similarly https://www.google.com/search?q=beseler+pm2l or similar meters can many times be found for little cost and make printing much easier, once you learn to use it.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  2. #102

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    You just provided a great piece of info to the discussion, your knowledge is important here. It is important to consider that stuff.

    Example:

    Part of the reason that I have basically "fallen back to" using manufacturer's recommendations as a baseline (box speed and normal dilutions, agitation, temperature, and times) is that I know they work and work really well. Similarly classic "point the dome at the camera" incident metering is so reliable that there is essentially no question about whether placement is workable or not.
    I'm curious about this Mark. I've been using T-Max films and following factory recommendations and using an incident meter. I'm not good at evaluating negatives but printing with a #2 filter results in a super contrasty print. I don't think I've ever had an easy to print negative using T-Max, unless it looked very underexposed. So at least with T-Max, what you're recommending isn't working for me. Tri-X OTOH, I've not had as much problems with. Have you shot T-Max without any adjusting from factory recommendations?

    One of the reasons shooting at 1/2 box speed is basically irrelevant to me personally is my metering methods. When shadow detail is really important in the shot I simply orient the head of the incident meter to measure, for example, open shade, rather than pointing the meter head at the camera which might make it cross lit. A person using classic "point at the camera orientation" would need to use 1/2 or maybe even 1/4 box speed to get the same reading/exposure placement I get.
    I'm interested in learning more about incident metering. My interest lies in close up photography, verging on macro at times. Often the shadows on the subject are so small there's no way I can use a spot meter effectively, but the light conditions can very a lot. The basic point at the camera, from the subject I get. But I'm not seeing a lot about incident meter technique. Can you recommend any books on the subject? Have you written any articles on the subject?

    Thanks,
    --
    Kenton Brede
    http://kentonbrede.com/

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,473
    Quote Originally Posted by kbrede View Post
    I'm curious about this Mark. I've been using T-Max films and following factory recommendations and using an incident meter. I'm not good at evaluating negatives but printing with a #2 filter results in a super contrasty print. I don't think I've ever had an easy to print negative using T-Max, unless it looked very underexposed. So at least with T-Max, what you're recommending isn't working for me. Tri-X OTOH, I've not had as much problems with.

    Thanks,
    Do you have enough shadow detail for your preferences? If so, and there is too much contrast, it could be overdevelopment. Note this does not mean Kodak's recommended development times are wrong. Perhaps your subjects are high in contrast. Even if this is not the case, there are several variables involved in the amount of development that occurs given a fixed development time. How accurate and stable is the temperature? What is the agitation procedure like? How much agitation? It should not be difficult to get good results with TMax films.

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    There is a distinction between film speed and EI. Film speed involves precision testing to determine a numerical value that represents the sensitivity of the film. The other has more to do with how to personally apply the concept of film speed to exposure. Except for the ISO speed standard, all testing methods are concerned with finding an EI. Perhaps the whole point of my argument is that each has it's own purpose and not to confuse the two.
    This may be a decent place to plug my recent "article" listing a series of links to some Kodak and Ilford resources which can be quite useful to inexperienced and experienced workers alike. One of the links is to a short publication from Kodak on ISO vs EI. There are likely a lot of people who get the impression from Zone System books etc that they need to do a speed test because the speed on the box is wrong.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...resources.html

  5. #105
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,916
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Michael just gave a nice summary of what can be happening. Part of the magic of using the directions is that it is normally well within the range of VC paper to adapt.

    As to exposure the best book for me was by far, Dunn and Wakefield, Exposure Manual. It is out of print but typically available used. 3rd edition is what I have and is fine, printed as incident meters were becoming modern, 4th edition would be a bit more up to date in that sense but the concepts taught aren't different, either will be good.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  6. #106
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,916
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Also Keaton that you find TX easier to use isn't a surprise to me. In the 100 speed range I find the same with FP4 when stacked up against TMax or Delta.

    There is no shame in using films you find easy to work with.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  7. #107
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    I prefer Tmax or Delta films, unless I use box speed. Haha!

  8. #108
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Seriously though, I like the Tmax etc. but I find they have no leeway when underexposing.

  9. #109
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,916
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Seriously though, I like the Tmax etc. but I find they have no leeway when underexposing.
    Seriously though,

    Which TMax?

    And which etc.?

    And you meter how?

    And you develop how?

    And shoot it at EI 100, 400, ... ?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  10. #110

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Do you have enough shadow detail for your preferences? If so, and there is too much contrast, it could be overdevelopment. Note this does not mean Kodak's recommended development times are wrong. Perhaps your subjects are high in contrast. Even if this is not the case, there are several variables involved in the amount of development that occurs given a fixed development time. How accurate and stable is the temperature? What is the agitation procedure like? How much agitation? It should not be difficult to get good results with TMax films.
    Micheal, I am happy with the shadow detail, the information is there, as well as the highlights, usually. I suspect I'm dealing with overdevelopment. Some of the scenes I've shot have been very contrasty but many have not been. Even if I shoot in shade, when I go to print that negative, the blacks build up fast, but the highlights are blown and that's with a #2 filter. With T-Max 100 and 400, I spend a lot of time with the #00 filter, trying to burn in the highlights. My last set of negs were a a nightmare. Even with a strait #00 filter, the darks would build up in seconds, before the highlights, and that was stopped down to f/22 and f/32 on the enlarger.

    My film development is very consistent. These are the steps:

    1. Develop, continuous agitation first 30 seconds, 3 inversions in 5 seconds, every 30 seconds thereafter. Always at published times.
    2. Stop bath, continuous agitation, 30 seconds.
    3. Fixer, 8 minutes, same agitation scheme as step 1.
    4. Fill tank with water, agitate continuously for 30 seconds, repeat.
    5. Perma wash for 2 minutes, same agitation scheme as step 1.
    7. Final water wash. Fill and dump tank 10 times, taking 1 minute to fill tank.
    8. Photo-flo and hang.

    I fill two pans with 20c water and place all chemicals used in the bath. All chemicals are brought to 20c, just before I start. Water rinses are also temperature controlled to 20c.

    I've got a glass calibration thermometer that I use to make sure my dial thermometer is accurate.

    Chemicals in the darkroom start at 20c and may drift to 21c.

    My light meter is a Sekonic L-508, calibrated by Quality Light Metric. I almost always use incident metering, pointed away from the subject, to the camera.
    Last edited by kbrede; 01-20-2013 at 10:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    --
    Kenton Brede
    http://kentonbrede.com/



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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