Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,065   Posts: 1,611,706   Online: 864
      
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121317 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 224
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,306
    Hi CPorter,

    My point regarding extreme contractions is that one must be aware of the shape of the full curve under these exposure/development conditions, not just the density range. Just because one "brings down" Zone XII to Zone VIII doesn't mean it will print with detail. People assume it will because the Zone System tells us "Zone VIII" prints with detail. But the negative curve might show that when applying N-4 to such a situation, the original exposure values for say Zones IX-XIII all end up lying within a relatively small range of densities. In other words, local contrast in the extreme highlights is severely flattened or lost altogether. The negative might fit the paper, but who cares about that if all you get are muddy, featureless highlights (not to mention lower shadow contrast even with more exposure).

    The danger of "blown" highlights applies as much to extreme contractions as it does to severe overexposure. This is why when dealing with very wide subject brightness ranges, each situation needs to be considered carefully. In certain cases for example, I may elect to apply a much more mild contraction than a simplistic view of the Zone System indicates. I'll get good separations all the way up to Zone XIII or XIV. Of course burning and dodging or whatever other techniques might be required in printing, but I'll likely have a more satisfying print in the end than if I had contracted the negative to "fit" the paper. Not to mention I'll have a much easier time printing the darker areas, which might be 80% or the image area or more.

    When you see people talk about extreme compensating procedures, or N-numbers like N-6 for example, if indeed they are getting good prints with good, clear highlight detail, it is likely because (again to steal Stephen's words) they are not getting what they think they are getting. They are probably getting less contraction than they think they are.

    I may not have explained this clearly, so I apologize in advance. If there is interest I could post some curves to demonstrate. But probably a topic for another thread as I'm referring to rather extreme cases (although they are situations I deal with often).

    Sorry for sidetracking this from Stephen's testing/methods topic and his questions to Andreas.

    Michael
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 01-16-2013 at 09:53 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  2. #62
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,661
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    My point regarding extreme contractions is that one must be aware of the shape of the full curve under these exposure/development conditions.
    And I agree.

    Only, I can tell you with certainty that when I expose for a particular scene's important high luminance value and then plan development for it, there are no assumptions involved.

  3. #63
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Most negatives which I have gotten to enlarge from others were underexposed and over developed. For me underexposed means simply put, using the wrong ISO rating. Of course metering etc. comes into that. It also relates to how the manufacturer gets this ISO rating and what it means. As I understand it and I may be wrong here but the rating correlates to a contrast of 1,5 am i wrong here? or me that is an overcast day in winter. Not a sunny day when many people take their cameras and run on the streets.

    I aggre to the comments of Michael about local contrast. That is too often ignored. One shouldn't just totally fit the development to fit to the paper contrast. If the scene is contrasty it should be kept that way. Here we come to dodging and burning.
    I would say that if one tests his stuff one will realize after awhile and handle accordingly. It is a matter of feeling and grasping what to do and that takes time.
    To go into the finer details of all this would take up so much space in a book so it isn't really mentioned.
    Yes in the good old days when the matterials were not that good as today the control of the situation was more important than today. With the long contrast range of today we can just record the situation better, but we need to get that exposure right and bend it in the direction we want and need.

  4. #64
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I have come to belive that true-underexposures are almost always caused by "us". It is caused by outright mistakes in setting the camera, poor metering technique, a lack of understanding of what the meter is saying, and or in trying to cheat to avoid camera support or flash when it is clearly needed.

    "We" are the wild card, not the film. I think it is actually almost impossible to get an underexposure caused by the film ISO rating. Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji are very good at their jobs, their films are well made and consistent and as best I can tell work extremely well and deliver exactly what they advertise.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  5. #65
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,906
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I think it is actually almost impossible to get an underexposure caused by the film ISO rating. Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji are very good at their jobs, their films are well made and consistent and as best I can tell work extremely well and deliver exactly what they advertise.
    well, there is delta3200
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #66
    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 RalphLambrecht View Post
    well, there is delta3200
    So where does Delta 3200 fall short? Our expectations or Ilford's info?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  7. #67
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,258
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I have come to belive that true-underexposures are almost always caused by "us". It is caused by outright mistakes in setting the camera, poor metering technique, a lack of understanding of what the meter is saying, and or in trying to cheat to avoid camera support or flash when it is clearly needed.

    "We" are the wild card, not the film. I think it is actually almost impossible to get an underexposure caused by the film ISO rating. Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji are very good at their jobs, their films are well made and consistent and as best I can tell work extremely well and deliver exactly what they advertise.
    Mark, that is why I suggest using the ISO speed as a starting point to determine the photographer's personal EI. Most pop testing methods have too many questionable elements that any true accuracy is impossible. All that they can really offer is a way to determine a personal EI. This is what most photographers really need, which is fine if they understand this. What I find troubling is when photographers question the legitimacy of the ISO standards based only on an understanding of a questionable "pop" methodology.

    Since obtaining a personal EI is the goal for most photographers, why then waste the time with a convoluted testing method. Shoot some negative as determine how you tend to exposure. But first, determine your processing.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    So where does Delta 3200 fall short? Our expectations or Ilford's info?
    Probably a little of both (concerns all "super-speed" films). My understanding is in the case of say Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 these are not ISO speeds.

  9. #69
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Probably a little of both (concerns all "super-speed" films). My understanding is in the case of say Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 these are not ISO speeds.
    Great example on how understanding theory is beneficial to understanding the process. Nowhere does it say ISO with these films, which means they haven't been tested according to the ISO standards. The "P" in P3200 stands for process.

  10. #70
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Great example on how understanding theory is beneficial to understanding the process. Nowhere does it say ISO with these films, which means they haven't been tested according to the ISO standards. The "P" in P3200 stands for process.
    But most do not this.
    Testing or taking photo with film and checking the negative surely comes down to the same thing at the end of the day.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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