Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,950   Posts: 1,557,886   Online: 942
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Shadow Detail

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Uh...Les I hope you mean Zone IV not Zone VI....
    I read on Phototechniques that Bruce encourages people to place on Zone IV, I was glad to confirm this as I always was unhappy with Zone III placement. Usually got the morass of black with no detail.




  2. #22
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    Jorge,

    Sorry........finger trouble, I did mean Zone IV. I think Bruce's series of articles in Phototechniques about the Myths of Photography was the best I'd read for a long time.

    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    33
    I too have come to the Zone IV shadow placement rather than the "classic" Zone III placement; this is for shadows in which I expect plenty of readily-visible detail, not the darkest thing I can find in the scene. This isn't after a specific incident, it's after an embarrassing number of years of feeling like the shadows may be printing a bit too dark too often.

    I usually use the film's normal EI or close to it. Many people rate the film at about half its usual rating and place the shadow exposure on Zone III, which is pretty much the same thing.

    I believe I read somewhere or other that Bruce Barnbaum had analysed an assortment of Ansel's photos and concluded that Ansel had frequently used the Zone IV placement even though he said or implied that the placement should be Zone III.

  4. #24
    glbeas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Roswell, Ga. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,307
    Images
    109
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (woody @ Nov 21 2002, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I&#39;ve been shooting the Tri-X at 320, and the Fp4 at 100 with equal results. I love the look of the Tri-X in Rodinal, nice smooth grain, but I just can&#39;t get any shadow detail.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
    I&#39;ve been told that Rodinal will give a lower EI than your average developer. Try derating your film a bit until you get the shadow detail you want.
    Gary Beasley

  5. #25
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    Les,
    It looks to me like the way you are rating the film (using the box numbers) and then placing the shadow at Zone IV is the same thing as cutting the box number in half and placing the shadow at Zone III. I agree that one should not be afraid to give plenty of exposure. I still like .10 over fb+f as a speed point for Zone I. I use Zone VIII as my developing time.

    lee

  6. #26
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    Lee,

    I agree.
    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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