Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,479   Posts: 1,644,447   Online: 788
      
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 104
  1. #71
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    ^^^haaaa J, in with ya! 7 pages of theory, with theoretical curve charts, etc., etc,. Yep the OP's yet to post a measly neg scan to us all waiting with bated breath.....
    Andy

  2. #72
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,668
    Blog Entries
    6
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    ^^^haaaa J, in with ya! 7 pages of theory, with theoretical curve charts, etc., etc,. Yep the OP's yet to post a measly neg scan to us all waiting with bated breath.....
    andy, its 8 pages now !
    i bet there isn't any film at all, it
    was all a "hypothetical situation" thread

  3. #73
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,961
    Images
    51
    You can't make this stuff up... I believe PeterB has the film to prove it.

  4. #74
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,766
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by sun of sand View Post
    everyone has heard that before
    most have ripped that tag off the cord long ago
    -whether or not they should have isn't the point

    I think the problem with that statement is that a 4 stop overexposure is not ideal, either ..and that is the reason for finding a developer+ which might possibly help
    i think most would agree that certain developers and certain ways of developing lose you speed while others give "full" speed
    It's pretty clear if you've overexposed and you're worried about it
    use a lower film speed developer etc and perhaps there is no reason to worry
    lemonaid from lemons
    obviously if his original film speed stems from a speed loss developer then another film speed loss developer won't do anything for him

    If you make potato salad and the salad isn't tasting right what do you do?
    just hope a day in the fridge will make it better
    just eat it anyway
    eat less? lol
    trash?
    or experiment
    you may make it worse
    you may remedy it
    if you already consider it "ruined" or "not good enough"
    what's to stop you?


    this guy should develop a snip of film- or another roll shot the same
    test it out
    if not to liking
    experiment

    he is experimenting by doing whatever he's doing in this thread
    but it falls short of true remedy
    and he's already "in the unknown"

    I'm suite sure you can lower film speed by 2 stops rather easily especially if your normal developer is a normal developer

    how about let it sit around for a few years? That might have lost it a stop in speed.
    develop it when your're 55
    probably right on!
    You don't just change film speed when you change developer. Lots of other things change too. Some time, when you have time to kill, expose, process, and develop two films to the same shadow detail and the same contrast index, and go into the darkroom to print them. Then tell the world what you found.

    My own approach is that I LIKE to know what to expect when I print. That makes the practice a lot less expensive, because it takes much less paper and time to get to a finished print. Less swearing, and a lot less darkroom gymnastics means that I have a LOT more time to focus on the pictures, which in my mind is what's most important.
    Changing developers, in my case, always screws me up, because I have to fight the process until my negs are the way I like them. Others might find that interesting. But for people like it's tremendously frustrating.
    "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

  5. #75
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,956
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    You don't just change film speed when you change developer. Lots of other things change too. Some time, when you have time to kill, expose, process, and develop two films to the same shadow detail and the same contrast index, and go into the darkroom to print them. Then tell the world what you found.

    My own approach is that I LIKE to know what to expect when I print. That makes the practice a lot less expensive, because it takes much less paper and time to get to a finished print. Less swearing, and a lot less darkroom gymnastics means that I have a LOT more time to focus on the pictures, which in my mind is what's most important.
    Changing developers, in my case, always screws me up, because I have to fight the process until my negs are the way I like them. Others might find that interesting. But for people like it's tremendously frustrating.
    Yep, since (mostly) standardizing on "normal contrast" by the book developing, my life in the darkroom got a lot easier, costs went down, and prints got a lot better regardless of the camera exposure. Just set the enlarger with its meter and I'm essentially ready to print an 11x14 truly expecting something close to right on the first try, no not finished but close enough that the second one darn well might be.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  6. #76
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    I was still looking for that elusive magic bullet. That never really fixed my problem.
    With a bit more experience I realized that chasing magic bullets to fix self inflicted injuries, is simply misguided.


    how is all this math and plotting whatever that's being done to find out whether or not you're outside the latitude window of the film not also chasing magic to fix injuries
    seems to me with that attitude you should be in the " just do better next time camp"





    In my experience, the big problem with jumping to "reset the film speed" or to "try a whole different curve" by switching to a different developer is that it messes with the whole film curve, not just the problem we want to fix.

    I guess I'm going to have to be shown examples where "messing with the whole film curve" ruins an "important" photograph more than 4 stops overexposure

    The first question that should be asked is "is there any benefit to changing my development?" With experience and practice under our belts we can actually answer that question.

    why can't the 2nd question be
    or even the first
    Can i benefit from the artificail loss of film speed through different developer or additives and does this "risk of curve shape" outweigh the chance I've blown what could be important high values by proceeding normally and hoping
    4 stops. what if he was actually 5 or more overexposed and outside of this acceptable window
    then what?


    to me for such an important photograph the real question is which is less risky/less desirable
    altered film curve
    loss of detail

    knowing what little I know but guided primarily from instinct I'd rather get the film well within bounds and get to work in the printing of the negative then hope I metered correctly the overexposure perhaps missing something that would then be unavoidable loss -like bright snow/sand

    This exercise will provide all of us with valuable insights to apply next time we accidentally overexpose a roll of film by at least 3-4 stops. If my approach turns out not to work I suppose I could spend the time taking them again, but at least I want to give this roll

    the best opportunity for success.


    guess you have to define success
    we need photographic evidence of all development strategies in roder to make that call on which is best

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,553
    Sun of sand. The curves and math and whatever have nothing to do with magic bullets. In fact it is the opposite. We were trying to show Peter that there is enough latitude in the film so that given his subject brightness range, overexposing by 4 stops does not necessitate a change in developer, development time or processing regime. No magic required. Some extra graininess, slightly less sharpness, resolution etc. But that's the price you pay for lots of extra exposure.

    With respect to speed losing developers, you have to be careful what else they might or might not do. In particular, since you mentioned Pyro, note Pyro developers typically fall under the dilute, soft working and/or compensating category. That can mean the shoulder begins earlier (ie a loss of highlight contrast - which Peter wanted to avoid). Reduced agitation with this type of developer can further compound that effect. This would need to be considered in conjunction with printing.

    One option could be a developer like Perceptol diluted 1+3, which doesn't compensate much and costs you about a stop of speed. But what have you really gained? Also we still don't really know how much the film was "overexposed". It is difficult to say.

  8. #78
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    i don't think you can look at the first post here and tell me there is no chasing of something
    he himself called it a recovery plan
    whether the film has enough latitude to absorb the overexposure or not you had to chart out to find out

    what if you don't know how
    what if the internet didn't exist
    to me, it still seems easist and will likely produce the better results of the two options to try and reduce film speed if you know at the very least you've quite overexposed the film

    " But that's the price you pay"
    If they were truly "important" photographs
    would you rather have to pay multiple prices
    or fewer prices

    depends
    test


    it seems that much overexposure will need quite a bit of burning in to get the clouds on paper
    that would seem to cause even more grain ..and i nthe sky tones
    and since burning in is normal for most prints with correctly exposed film
    it -seems- it would be even tougher to burn in that close to the edge of detail
    don't know
    some localized higher tones might go plain flat instead of burning in to detail

    i was suggesting Rodinal more than Pyro and normal development more than compensating or stand
    I was actually stating a belief that film speed could be dropped solely with the addition of restrainer to any developer
    I don't know how far it can be dropped
    only that you can lose speed ..at perhaps the cost of increased contrast ..which is why I also pointed/suggested the use of a compensating or decreased development time to counteract
    pyro or minimal agitation only as other possibilities



    don't know
    seems ther emust be a reason people use a meter and try really hard not to overexpose by that much
    and just because it can be done in those simple throw-away cameras with no controls and get SOMETHING doesn't mean someone interested in photography and best print "success" would be accepting of those snapshot results


    Did Ansel graph and plot before developing moonrise, hernandez? maybe. didn't he just figure the moon could blow out so made sure to save it with divided d23
    he says he'd have given another stop for the foreground ..meaning d23 still would kept the moon in check

    is that magic bullet chasing? choosing a developer to suit the exposure rather than choosing exposure to suit the negative
    am i thinking about that correlation correcty? I'm so tired i can't type

    or just that he knew what d23 would do having fully tested it out
    well
    so could this poster test it all out before developing these negatives





    lets see the print

    usable is not the same as fine

  9. #79
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,668
    Blog Entries
    6
    Images
    39
    son of sand

    a lot of people chase magic bullets, it is what makes them happy, and more power to them!

    in the end experience seems to be the magic bullet, nothing else.
    i have more experience now and know what i would do now to salvage film that is grossly under or over exposed
    but that is only because i have been forgetful enough or dumb enough or befuddled enough to make the same mistakes
    more than once and have had to figure things out on my own.

    even thought the internet is great for tapping into the collective-experience ...
    a lot of times people who have no experience make suggestions as if they are experts ( this thread has lacked that element ! )
    but it also makes it easy to be lazy and not learn by one's own experience, but by someone else's experience ...


    =====


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    You can't make this stuff up... I believe PeterB has the film to prove it.
    i don't know bill, i have read some crazy stuff here on apug
    maybe you're right, i have to be patient, i am sure i can wait until page 15 to see the results
    ... and who knows maybe they will have been taken in a week

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,553
    Sun of sand:

    First, Ansel was dealing with films that had shorter exposure scales than current films, so the example isn't really relevant.

    As for metering and exposure, yes people try not to give more exposure than they feel is necessary. There are two reasons. 1)Optimize image structure characteristics (less grain, less irradiation, less halation etc.) 2)Avoid losing highlight detail in the shoulder

    Regarding an overexposed negative needing more burning in, it shouldn't in this case. As long as the exposure range remains within the straight line of the curve, increasing exposure does not increase contrast. All the densities is the negative are increased by the same amount. You just have a more dense negative than a correctly exposed negative (which is why graininess increases). If there is any increase in contrast, it would be in the shadows because even the darkest parts of the scene would be off the toe. You just print them down.

    I guess we'll have to disagree here. We're all ok.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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