Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,326   Posts: 1,536,955   Online: 1204
      
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121317 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 228
  1. #61
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    To tell the truth I am bit lost here.
    Reading all this.
    All I can say is that I use the 0.1 speed point as my first reference. I plot my curves to see how the shape is. This is important for me. When I use my adopted method (a bit of this a bit of that) I can usually make my print at about Grade 2 (to simplify this using Grades), I increase the development times slightly because I like to use unsharp masks and the funny thing is I land at a contrast of about 0.62 which is what most published time use as a standard. However my actuall development times are always less than published and I always have to overexpose.
    I am always amazed and wondering when people say they use box speed. It doesn't make sense to me.
    My point is that it is good practice to critically question the details / theory of testing method they use or are considering using. I believe the testing results most people produce create a false sense of accuracy. They basically aren't getting what they think they are getting.

    Would you mind breaking down your testing process? You say you use 0.10 speed point. How do you test for this? Do you have a reference for the CI 0.62 that you say most published sources use this standard? Are you determining it yourself or have you chosen it based on a source?

    Why are you amazed people use box speed?

  2. #62
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    353
    I have enlarged hundreds of photo for people. Artists and Photographer. Most od them use box speed. The results are aweful. So much trying to get a decent print. I lot of people do not change their exposure or development with thought according to the lighting situations.
    Basically I use a similar method used by Phil Davis in exposing film under an enlarger. Develop five or more testa at differnt times and plot them. I use a more contrasty "standard" to Phil Davis since I find his reults to soft to be practical.
    My aim is to fit my negatives to a Paper contrast of 1.05. As mentioned I usually increase my devolpment because of the use of unsharp masks. If I desire I do change my exposure according to what I want or need.
    Have to go dinner is being served. I will get back to this later.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,639
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    I have enlarged hundreds of photo for people. Artists and Photographer. Most od them use box speed. The results are aweful. So much trying to get a decent print. I lot of people do not change their exposure or development with thought according to the lighting situations.
    Basically I use a similar method used by Phil Davis in exposing film under an enlarger. Develop five or more testa at differnt times and plot them. I use a more contrasty "standard" to Phil Davis since I find his reults to soft to be practical.
    My aim is to fit my negatives to a Paper contrast of 1.05. As mentioned I usually increase my devolpment because of the use of unsharp masks. If I desire I do change my exposure according to what I want or need.
    Have to go dinner is being served. I will get back to this later.
    Andreas - how can you be sure the awful negatives (and I must assume for now you mean underexposed when you say awful) are the direct consequence of these people having rated their film at box speed? What about how they metered their scenes, exposed the film, developed the film? There are many variables to consider.

  4. #64
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Well, the first thing I'd recommend to anybody using any kind of Zone System testing methodology is to produce a full curve, not just target a Zone I and Zone VIII density. To me, everything is about contrast - ie the shape of the entire curve since I am ultimately concerned with printing.

    As I've said, the speed point is a means to an end. I'm concerned with local contrast.

    But even when contrast is considered in Zone System testing, there should be a lot more discussion about local contrast (ie not just CI or Gamma) and the paper curve. After all, how many people come away from Zone System contraction methods (including extreme contractions) thinking N-4 necessarily means Zone XII will print with good detail because it has a Zone VIII density in the negative?

    But I'm getting ahead of the discussion there. We've sort of disagreed regarding the practical use of measures like CI in the past - mostly because I am typically dealing with significantly wider subject brightness ranges than average.
    I agree that producing a full curve is essential, especially since in the ZS, knowing the CI is not a relevant consideration for anything ......the films response to development is relevant along the entirety of the curve, not just by points on the curve connected by a straight line. Not to diminish CI, only that the specific value of CI has no inherent significance in the primary function of the ZS, which, as stated in The Negative, is to support visualization.

    I disagree on the extreme contractions statement, shadows can be given added exposure with the "placement", and compensation development used to support that added density in the low values while keeping good separation at the important higher values. I have only accomplished an N-3 contraction, but I have indeed accomplished it through highly dilute developer with hc-110 and reduced agitation, with TMX, albeit at a loss of film speed at EI 50. The preferred neg density range was effectively maintained. But perhaps I'm just misreading your intent on it.
    Last edited by CPorter; 01-16-2013 at 08:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,639
    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 08:53 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  6. #66
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    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.

  7. #67
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    353
    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.

  8. #68
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,700
    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, Ignacio, CO

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

  9. #69
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,467
    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

  10. #70
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,700
    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, Ignacio, CO

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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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