Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,268   Posts: 1,534,355   Online: 851
      
Page 1 of 19 123456711 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 182
  1. #1
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,673
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19

    Print range versus negative.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	150 
Size:	124.1 KB 
ID:	67316

    The graphic above is a very rough illustration of an idea.

    SBR is scene brightness range, PBR is the paper.

    The problem I see is that many people expect what is caught on the negative to translate directly to paper.

    Part of what I wanted to illustrate was how the subject matter can carry through and how the paper rather than the negative defines the photo.

    Another was to show why/how film under or overexposure loses info. In a related way why there is latitude when negatives are in use.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,951
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	150 
Size:	124.1 KB 
ID:	67316

    The graphic above is a very rough illustration of an idea.

    SBR is scene brightness range, PBR is the paper.

    The problem I see is that many people expect what is caught on the negative to translate directly to paper.

    Part of what I wanted to illustrate was how the subject matter can carry through and how the paper rather than the negative defines the photo.

    Another was to show why/how film under or overexposure loses info. In a related way why there is latitude when negatives are in use.
    And when I said the latitude is the difference between negative dynamic range and paper dynamic range people asked said who?. Since you can render a small part of the dynamic range captured on the negative onto paper (without dodging or burning in) the extra allows you to error in the exposure and thus the latitude. If you can render all the dynamic range on the negative then there is no latitude.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,614
    Isn't this what the Dorst and Jones/"Windmill" diagrams show?

    The real problem is people think they can simply apply N-X development to a negative to "fit" the paper, and maintain N local contrast. This is a real problem with how people think about compensating development for example. There's this notion out there you can somehow compress total contrast in the negative without compressing local contrast. Lucky for them they don't get as much compensation as they think they do.

  4. #4
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    353
    There is always the question, how much to compensate or expand.

  5. #5
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    353
    I am coming more and more to the point of maybe just exposing normal and developing normal and doing the rest in the darkroom.

  6. #6
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,282
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    I am coming more and more to the point of maybe just exposing normal and developing normal and doing the rest in the darkroom.
    Yes, it really does get down to that! Those of us that use roll film have never had much other choice. Now, defining "normal" is a whole other discussion ...

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,858
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	150 
Size:	124.1 KB 
ID:	67316

    The graphic above is a very rough illustration of an idea.

    SBR is scene brightness range, PBR is the paper.

    The problem I see is that many people expect what is caught on the negative to translate directly to paper.

    Part of what I wanted to illustrate was how the subject matter can carry through and how the paper rather than the negative defines the photo.

    Another was to show why/how film under or overexposure loses info. In a related way why there is latitude when negatives are in use.
    You are referring to the tone reproduction. This subject has been described in the Kodak Publication 'Kodak Professional Black and White Films, Negative Quality p. 2-7. second edition November 1976'. Later editions are available as well. The Kodak approach has a scientific base and is valid for modern high definition optics as well as older optics. This in contrast to the zone system approach which is valid for older low definition optics. [Modern lenses are often so detailed, that a zone does not exist anymore and another approach is required].

    Jed

  8. #8
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    A print con only encompass a range of density from 0.1 to 2.2 on average. A negative can run from 0.05 to 3.0 or greater. A print should have a contrast of about 1.5 - 1.7 to look good to the eye. Can you work from there without a graph? Or, try the diagrams in Haist. Volume 2.

    PE

  9. #9
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,133
    Images
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Isn't this what the Dorst and Jones/"Windmill" diagrams show?

    The real problem is people think they can simply apply N-X development to a negative to "fit" the paper, and maintain N local contrast. This is a real problem with how people think about compensating development for example. There's this notion out there you can somehow compress total contrast in the negative without compressing local contrast. Lucky for them they don't get as much compensation as they think they do.
    This is interesting.

    My thinking the last few years (simply stated), has been to make generously exposed negatives and then develop them (in Rodinal) to the point where they print well between grades 3 to 4, a high grade but with room on each end in case of an error. The reasoning behind this is that exposure pushes the shadows up onto the straight line part of the curve, the development tames the hightlights (or sometimes expands them) so they are reasonable to print or burn in (with various filter grades) and that the high paper grade of the base exposure helps to give a bit of punch to the local contrast as well.

    This practice has done well for me, and by that I mean that I'm happy with the resulting prints. I'm wondering however, if what is actually happening is that which I've listed above or something else and it's just been working for me... Curiosity and a better understanding of my materials being the driver for my question.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,614
    It's difficult to know what is actually happening without objective testing - which is not necessarily easy to do. But if it is working, I'd say keep doing whatever you're doing. We all learn to print with the negatives we make, regardless of whether or not they are exactly the way we think they are. There's enough room in the materials. In any case I was referring to more extreme contractions and dilute solvent developers.

    Apologies to Mark if I derailed the thread. Back to his diagram now.

Page 1 of 19 123456711 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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