^^^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 !
Originally Posted by zsas
i bet there isn't any film at all, it
was all a "hypothetical situation" thread
You can't make this stuff up... I believe PeterB has the film to prove it.
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.
Originally Posted by sun of sand
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
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.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
so could this poster test it all out before developing these negatives
lets see the print
usable is not the same as fine
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.