Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,979   Posts: 1,523,699   Online: 1114
      
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 121617181920212223 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 228
  1. #211
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,173
    Images
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Fun fact about flare and shadow compression. Ever wonder why Tri-X professional, with it's long toe, is considered a "studio" film? There's less flare with interiors and the ability to control lighting. In theory, regular Tri-X shot in daylight would have similar tonal distribution in the toe as Tri-X Pro shot in the studio.
    A friend of mine pointed out something interesting that is practical application of this. Normally shooting portraits using Tri-X and HC-110, and switching to TMax 400 and Xtol, all of a sudden shadows were problematic due to flare. Solution? Expose TMax 400 at 1,000 to 1,200 and Xtol is still efficient enough in the shadows to get enough shadow detail - all while burying most of the flare. In fact, it looks a whole hell of a lot like Tri-X this way, and the advantage is of course that it gets easier to shoot medium format or large format with almost two extra stops of light. Just an aside, but it's a practical example of what you're saying.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #212

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    There's another factor that hasn't been address and that is the perception of the scene. The viewer expects a certain look from a backlit scene and that usually includes a flattening of the shadows. If the object of the photograph is to be natural looking, then snappy shadow contrast may not be appropriate. Personally, one of my favorate photographic approaches is to play against these kind of conventions.
    Obviously, but I don't think that's what was being proposed as theoretical support for reduced exposure under high flare conditions. Flare flattens shadow contrast on its own. The only reason to reduce exposure (assuming of course the highlights fall within the scale of the film) is to flatten them even more. If that's the intent of the artist, I have absolutely no problem with it.

  3. #213
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    The book of Henry is worth a read, what would it bring me?

  4. #214

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,549
    Some of the theory is good, and many myths are debunked. In my opinion the first half of the book which deals more with printing (paper etc) is perhaps the better part of the book - although the materials themselves are all outdated except Dektol. I find the second half a little more difficult to follow. Exposure theory, K factors and meter calibration etc - these are not the clearest parts of the book. And the film/developer testing data on granularity, sharpness etc are of relatively little practical use.

    To me, the most important "learning outcome" from reading Henry is a healthly skepticism. It reminds us much of what we read about photographic technique and materials has little in the way of evidence to back it up. And as Stephen has said many times, even when we are presented with data it is important to be given information on the testing procedures, otherwise it is difficult to conclude anything. Sometimes you read an article in a magazine and it looks really sound because is has tables and charts and curves. But what if there were all sorts of errors or sources of error, mistakes etc in the test? As we know there are many variables to manage, and as I've come to learn, designing a proper photographic test is not so easy.

    At the same time though, once we realize how much of what people say is wrong - including some very fine photographers/printers - we must then reconcile this to the fact they still end up with great prints. This tells me there is quite a bit of lattitude in the photographic process, from metering to exposure to development to printing. It means people can be wrong about what is going on at a scientific level but still make things work, because the lattitude provided by our materials allows them to work around the "data" they present with practice - usually without them knowing it. Often, people, even great photographers are not getting what they think they are getting from their process when it comes to film speed, curves etc, but it doesn't really matter because with practice they've simply developed their technique around what they are actually getting.

    Stephen has written about all this before, so I'm not saying anything new. I just like Henry's book because it presents many practical examples.

    To sum things up, there is a lot of bad information out there. Just because someone on APUG, or the author of a book says something is so, doesn't mean it is so. When somebody makes a statement, you might ask them to prove it!
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 02-01-2013 at 07:20 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #215
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Michael, could you make my points from here on out? You do it so much better.

  6. #216

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,549
    Is that sarcasm again? If not, I've only repeated what you've said. And no matter how well anyone presents these points, in the end these exposure threads are pretty much the only place this sort of thing can be discussed. Over in the Film/paper/chemistry and Enlarging forums when anyone raises these issues they get hammered. It has happened to me many times.

  7. #217
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    It's sincerely meant to be a compliment. I wish I could make my points as well.

  8. #218

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,549
    I just wish more people read your stuff! I've certainly learnt a lot so far. And I find myself being much more careful when I say things about films, developers, characteristic curves etc. I try not to add any myths or faulty information to the craft.

  9. #219
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    I thank you all for your thoughts and I will be reading more of all your stuff.
    One thing I have noticed over the years having read many books, from Feininger, Adams, Barnbaum, Ctein, Lambrecht, Davis to name the more well known is that a lot contradict each other.
    Many books just seem to copy what others have written in the past(not really meaning those mentioned above).
    This is all very confusing, especially for people starting out. I worked until recently in a professional darkroom and there I have enlarged many negatives which were in an awful state exposure and development wise.
    Not enought attention is given in my opinion to an important factor in the photography regarding exposure firstly and to a lesser degree development.
    Too much attention is given to cameras, special magical developers etc. The handcraft needed for exposure is negleted too much.
    Although for a few "mistakes" running in the wild out there I think aren't that bad since some of the information gets in a general good direction and should help even if not 100% correct.

    This has also taught me to be sceptical and that led me to testing. I just hate reading long articles on the computer, it makes me giddy and nervous. I suppose I will print out a few things.

  10. #220
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Is that sarcasm again? If not, I've only repeated what you've said. And no matter how well anyone presents these points, in the end these exposure threads are pretty much the only place this sort of thing can be discussed. Over in the Film/paper/chemistry and Enlarging forums when anyone raises these issues they get hammered. It has happened to me many times.
    Yes, It's sincere, Michael R 1974. You are really making clear posts that make sense.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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