Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,503   Posts: 1,597,888   Online: 1092
      
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 104
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,221
    Moonrise is just not a good example here. Sensitometry was not what it is now, materials were not what they are now, he couldn't find his light meter, didn't know how underexposed the foreground might be, etc. We also have to acknowledge Adams's technical reasoning - as much as we all admire him - was not always 100% sound.

    I don't think anyone was suggesting Peter "settle" from a technical perspective. I simply don't think there is much that could have been done to materially improve the negative given the criteria set out in the original post.

    The effects of both halation and irradiation can be impacted by development. Barring gross overexposure, microdensitometry would likely be required to objectively evaluate all this with current films which have effective anti-halation dyes and acutance dyes to reduce irradiation.

  2. #92
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    that last post of mine wasn't my best ever. If the range is comletely accounted for then there is not z10 -z12 to burn in
    I still wonder if the clouds will become gritty upon burning in -not they NEED to be burned in- but for artistic reasons
    If grain shows mostly in the darker tones and you darken some tones within in a cloud and the overexposure has already increased grain quite a bit it would seem to make for very grainy skies

    The "Nuclear" highlights seen in many movies stem from overesposure of hard highlights causing halation with as little as 5 stops and with some form of diffusion on the lens
    I was wondering when halation could begin to occur
    if 5 stops over guarantees it then it may be seen slightly earlier in lesser form
    and any error along the way from variable seen or unseen might push the overexposure into that range
    but there was wiggle room given that should absorb any of this
    still
    this "practical shoulder" I don't understand. There is the true shoulder of the film and this one of imortance in actual photography that acts as if a shouldering
    don't know


    and while ansel certainly did use d23 and knew it's strengths before moonrise
    i don't believe he stood there while calculating the moons luminance or whatever that he's use d23 in the development
    only afterards in order to save any overexposure of the moon
    He knew what he had and used what he had judiciously
    that is what is relevant
    I've shortened the learning process by mentioning something that MIGHT work. no fiddling about with hudnreds of potential things ..just experimenting with one

    and so while OP might not be worried about "saving"
    there is still the optimization of the image and if it were truly an "important" shot like ansel thought of moonrise
    I'm sure ansel would be thinking hard of how to lessen the effects of overexposure
    NOT just "well, throw away snapshot cameras rely on the latititude of film to produce something on paper"
    ..even if he had HP5+ back then

    it does seem an awful lot like settling ..perhaps that's all that can be done
    ansel may have had lots of time and practice with such things
    but it's not hard for the OP to test for speed loss, either

    "I don't believe there is anything could be done to improve"
    nobody has as of yet said anything about the effect of restrainers on speed/development
    everyone knows there is speed loss associated wit htheir use
    maybe contrat increases
    but nobody has said anything of it here
    if you could reduce emulsion speed by even 2 stops and simply develop for less time to account for any contrast gain

    wouldn't you do it? for such an important photograph you -know- is overexposed by -at least- 4 stops?


    and I still don't buy the curve shape argument. compensated compressed highlights is one thing
    but the rest
    i don't think anyone truly cares when a different curve shape would rescue an image from nothingness
    that's optimization talk
    but again, nobody has yet disproven my idea for restrainer/speed loss for optimization



    I was going to do a simplified test yesterday evening but my rear window shattered from a rock while out mowing the grass
    and a little too windy

    maybe this evening
    looks like blue sky and clouds but might become too overcast

  3. #93
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Sun of sand the idea of using a speed reducing developer is reasonable. I agree that testing is worthwhile and doable, even suggested that way back.

    My only concern with changing developers is one of learning the new combo. That takes time, one roll does not make an expert.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #94
    MartinCrabtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Back in the hills
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    729
    Images
    3
    Well? I'm dying here.

  5. #95
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinCrabtree View Post
    Well? I'm dying here.
    The first scene on this roll of film has printed very easily using a MG II 1/2 filter. As I bracketed, the frame I chose to print was 'only' 3 stops over. I haven't found the need to expose the print for much longer at all compared to my normal times which is unusual. There is no lack of sharpness from halation. I will endeavour to scan and upload an image of the print on the weekend.

    As I mentioned previously I had already developed another roll that was 4 stops over exposed before posting this thread, well it turns out the images on that roll look very dense because the scene had a much larger SBR and I intentionally didn't care about the sky blowing out/losing detail as I was mainly exposing for other areas in the scene. The light grey clouds were going to fall on Zone XI with my intended N development. With 10 stops from Zone II to Zone XI this would have comfortably fit onto HP5+'s characteristic curve permitting me to dodge those clouds if I wanted to. However with another 4 stops of exposure accidentally given, there needed to be 14 stops of linearity in the straight line section and that probably wasn't going to happen. Another effect I saw on this particular roll (very pronounced due to the unusually high level of light) were artefacts outside the frame area - something peculiar to my camera in high light conditions that I have previously documented and explained here.

    Thank you for your patience.

    regards
    Peter

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,994
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    3
    LOL

    and we all thought you were going to post your results here to this thread
    silly us !

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,124
    Well, I did the same thing doing pictures of my new puppy on 8x10 HP5. The pictures were at f4.5 by mistake or f22 by planning and lighting . Both developed the same and the prints were only different in there DOF and the print times which were 2 minutes and 10 sec for contact prints.
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  8. #98
    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 PeterB View Post
    However with another 4 stops of exposure accidentally given, there needed to be 14 stops of linearity in the straight line section and that probably wasn't going to happen.
    How do you know? We're prints made, curves plotted?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterB View Post
    Another effect I saw on this particular roll (very pronounced due to the unusually high level of light) were artefacts outside the frame area - something peculiar to my camera in high light conditions that I have previously documented and explained here.

    Thank you for your patience.

    regards
    Peter
    This may very well be the effect of flare. It's always there, in every shot, in every camera system, and effects areas of lower exposure most; you are partially right in that the exact magnitude and effect is unique based on the tools in use.

    As general exposure increases the effect of flare becomes more evident because it rises over the fog level. It has the effect on compressing shadow detail, highlights are only marginally effected. Essentially the same effect as pre-flashing.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  9. #99
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    LOL
    and we all thought you were going to post your results here to this thread silly us !
    I said I will, you just need to be patient.

  10. #100
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    How do you know? We're prints made, curves plotted?
    I said probably, not definitely. Probably based on the latitude of HP5 showing 'only' 10.5 stops in the linear region [1]. If HP5+ really can do 14 stops in the straight line region targeting grade 2 or 3 then Ilford would want to brag about it. They might be able to achieve 12 stops.

    [1]
    latitude approx. = (4.15-1.0)/0.3=10.5 stops
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HP5 plus characteristic curve from Ilford.png 
Views:	11 
Size:	22.3 KB 
ID:	70156
    Last edited by PeterB; 06-13-2013 at 12:11 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo in formula

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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