Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,292   Posts: 1,681,294   Online: 1111
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a darkroom far, far away...
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,115
    Blog Entries
    30
    Images
    19
    There's a great article in UK-based Black and White Photography, Christmas edition, pp54-55 by Mike Johnston about an older still procedure refered to as the ring-around. Might be worth checking out.
    Thank you.
    -CW

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  2. #12
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by LoveMinusZero
    wouldn't you need to photograph a shadow at a couple of exposures to find the EI, or else the development could overdevelop the highlights, even though you underexposed? also the same for midtones?
    Sorta, kinda, maybe.

    Many testing methods lean toward "exposing for the shadows" to determine a personalized EI (adjusted ISO, recognizing that this is really a misuse of the term), with the associated concept of "developing for the highlights" - i.e. adjusting development to control the contrast range in the negative ("normal" contrast scenes get "normal" development, etc.). The problem, of course, is how one defines "shadow" - absent some predetermined control point - and what is "normal". Some sensitometry-based methods, for example, look for a certain increase in negative density above film base + fog (the density of the non-image areas of the developed film). Other methods take different approaches to accomplish similar goals.

    My suggestion to beginners (particularly those who don't have a densitometer) is to pick a method that seems to make intuitive sense to them as an individual, and then work with it for a while. Over time, and with some experience under one's belt, other methods may become more attractive. That depends on how "scientific" one wants to be about the whole thing. Consistency in method, whatever it might be, is probably more important in the long run, however.

    The other factor that plays into this is the dynamic range the particular type of film is capable of capturing, and what effect that has on how one approaches determining exposure (meter type and method). Slide films, for example, are more limited than negative films, and color varies from B&W. My suggestion is to pick whatever film type you work with most, and gain experience in using it.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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