Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,873   Posts: 1,520,127   Online: 918
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47
  1. #11
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,637
    Images
    4
    Joe, I agree with you. I think Fred even said that the best negative was the thinnest negative that held appropriate information in all zones, or something like that. Anyway, I'm sure of the thinnest negative part. Count me among those who followed Fred's methods for years.

    I find those negatives too thin for printing on Azo, so I've also begun moving shadows up to ZIV to get the required density. But I wonder if I never properly placed the zones to start with. I suspect that may be the true trouble.

    Remember when considering film speed that the ASA standards were changed in the late 50s-early 60s. The film speeds were doubled. Maybe that's why so many of us halve the film speed.
    juan

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chalk Hill, PA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    63
    Regarding rated speeds for film, I think there is a "standard" developer used for the official ISO speed test. It might be mentioned in the BTZS book, or the Film Developing Cookbook. As a few others have mentioned, I think the developer will have more of an impact on speed than meters.

    I have read that the thin negatives are preferred, since for the same end result there is less light scattering by the silver grains (I can't remember the technical name for that).

  3. #13
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,229
    Images
    73
    I think many have hit the nail on the head when they mention they either don't know what a zone looks like on the neg or took quite awhile figuring it out.

    After 35 years of doing B&W I think I have a pretty good idea of what a good neg should look like. At least for me, with my techniques, my water, and my equipment it appears suggested asa's work for me. Even for trannies as well.

    My main point in all of this was to stress the importance of getting your equipment calibrated so at least you are starting from a reasonable and known benchmark.

    Shutter speed is just as important as meter calibration. If my shutter is 1/2 stop to slow it will impact my negs in exactly the same way whether I use it on my field camera or on my monorail. Unless you have something seriously wrong with your camera's interior there should be no difference.

    IMHO there has been way to much VooDoo applied to the analysis and generation of B&W negs. Many would benefit from learning to get a great negative using suggested asa's, and developing times utilizing regular developers. This of course with calibrated equipment. Once this is achieved then fine tuning could be done. Of course they would also have to learn to print this negative as well before any fiddling is done.

    This said I do use the ZS all the time and feel very comfortable with it. I can spot what zones are what in the field and know when to use N+ etc for the final effect wanted. I know of one person who has come up with very customized developing dilutions and exposure placements thru much testing. He gets the results he wants. But guess what? His meter is 1.5 stops out. I suspect he could use much more mainstream developing times and zone placements if he had is meter calibrated.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    In my twenty plus years of shooting and developing film I have learned a few things (still have much to learn). One thing that I have learned is that if one follows the suggestions of Ansel and of Fred of establishing .10 as the film speed point that it virtually guarantees prints that exhibit empty, flat, and unseparated shadow tones. That is I assume why some have taken to placing shadows at III and IV levels. Because a .10 density and incorrect placement will guarantee that shadows fall on the toe of the film's characteristic curve. For shadows to have separation they must be exposed up off the toe of the curve. The other thing that I have learned is that developing film to a 1.25 to 1.35 above FB+fog (per Ansel) is that the prints will exhibit very poor local contrast. The overall (general) contrast may be acceptable but the local contrast is seriously deficient. In my experience it is the local contrast within the print that brings life to the print. It is not the overall contrast at all.

    Think about this for a moment, if you will. If we test and establish that a film such as TriX, for instance, is truly a EI 160 film (based on a .10 density in HC110 dil b). Then we place the low values in an exposure on a Zone III or IV. Aren't we in effect saying that irrespective of the manufacturers rating or Ansel's and Fred's edicts that this film needs to be exposed at EI 40 (Zone III placement) or EI 20 (Zone IV placement). Then when we have in our development testing placed our high value densities at 1.25 above FB+fog we have in effect shortened the entire scale of the film. This is a sure guarantee for flat and lifeless prints in my darkroom.

    What I find today is that the negatives that I exposed based along the lines of Ansel's guidelines are not printing the way that I want them on grade two paper. (Not Oriental Seagull---not anybody else's). I end up printing those negatives at anywhere between a grade three to grade five filtration. What this tells me is that the density range of the negative (using Ansels guidelines) is too compressed.

    The fact is that the EI of a film is a moving target. It is not stationary in the case of plus or minus developing. Nor is it a stationary number if one switches between different developers. It may be and then again it may not be. Yes we need to have some type of guideline in exposure. In my estimation the principles that Phil Davis advocates more nearly approximate the characteristics of our materials in the real world. Ansel and Fred did no testing of the exposure scale of the papers that they were using. Phil Davis considers the paper as the primary starting point for the entire photographic performance. It makes sense to me that if I am about making prints and not about making negatives that I would want to determine the paper characteristics and from that point then bring my negatives into accordance with the paper. This is because the paper is fixed in it's characteristics (in the case of a given paper at a given grade for that paper).

    I think that if we didn't use VC materials nearly as much as we did today. There would be more people unhappy with their results using Ansel's and Fred's guidelines.

    As others have said this is about producing prints that exhibit the tonal representation that we wish for our efforts. For myself this is not about following the guidelines of another photographer especially when their guidelines are in serious error.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    If I am shooting 35mm I have a standard ei for each film and developer combo. But I still bracket one under and one over my ei. Film is cheap and if I don't have a spot meter or am shooting street stuff that ensures i get one good negative with normal developing. If I think I have something really special, I might record the exposure number, pull the canister and clip use tailored developing time for that specific neg and sacrifice the rest.

    With sheet film I always use a spot meter meter highlights first and then set the shadows on IV and determine development from there. One thing I noticed right away when i strated using staining developers is that you can really open up shadows mtering for IV and not worry where the highlights fell because the compensating effect would tame the highlights. Then it is up to the paper and developer combo. I think this is why contact printing and AZO have become the rage. The more people move to PYRO based developers the more you need a paper that can record the information. Once you use a paper that produces a greater range of tones, you need to go back and adjust the exposure and devlopment regimen to take advantage of the materials.

    I guess what I am getting at is it doesn't really matter how you determine exposure, but you need to consider all the materials as part of the equation.

  6. #16
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    Don wrote this:
    "Think about this for a moment, if you will. If we test and establish that a film such as TriX, for instance, is truly a EI 160 film (based on a .10 density in HC110 dil b). Then we place the low values in an exposure on a Zone III or IV. Aren't we in effect saying that irrespective of the manufacturers rating or Ansel's and Fred's edicts that this film needs to be exposed at EI 40 (Zone III placement) or EI 20 (Zone IV placement). Then when we have in our development testing placed our high value densities at 1.25 above FB+fog we have in effect shortened the entire scale of the film. This is a sure guarantee for flat and lifeless prints in my darkroom."

    Lee wrote this:
    "the way I interpret this is that the zone III is really at 80 and the zone IV is 110. Maybe I am not understanding properly. Certainly would not be the first time.

    If one is slavish to the zone system, one can expect some of the problems that Don has stated. I disagree with the number he used for zone VIII. I like 1.35 for zone VIII. The 1.2 or 1.25 would be about zone VII in my book. I use PMK pyro and without a color densitometer I can't tell exactly what the zone really is but I have exposed and developed and printing a lot of those negatives. My times do not reflect what Gordon H. uses or recommends.

    lee\c

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Don wrote this:
    "Think about this for a moment, if you will. If we test and establish that a film such as TriX, for instance, is truly a EI 160 film (based on a .10 density in HC110 dil b). Then we place the low values in an exposure on a Zone III or IV. Aren't we in effect saying that irrespective of the manufacturers rating or Ansel's and Fred's edicts that this film needs to be exposed at EI 40 (Zone III placement) or EI 20 (Zone IV placement). Then when we have in our development testing placed our high value densities at 1.25 above FB+fog we have in effect shortened the entire scale of the film. This is a sure guarantee for flat and lifeless prints in my darkroom."

    Lee wrote this:
    "the way I interpret this is that the zone III is really at 80 and the zone IV is 110. Maybe I am not understanding properly. Certainly would not be the first time.



    Don wrote this:
    Lee, you raise an interesting point. Maybe my calculations are in error. This is how I arrived at the EI's that I originally posted. If we start with the EI of 160 for TriX, then each zone will be a doubling or halving of light reaching the film and consequently a doubling or halving of the EI. Thus I calculated Zone I as 160. Zone II as 80 (since the exposure is doubled), Zone III as 40 (again redoubled), and Zone IV as 20 (again redoubled). The EI is halved when the exposure is doubled.

    Yes you are correct in that Ansel said 1.35 for diffusion sources and 1.25 for condensor sources. I did my originally testing of TriX according to those parameters. My experience still stands. The overall contrast is acceptable and the local contrast seriously sucks.

  8. #18
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,674
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Didn't Ansel say to place the shadows on Zone III? In which book did he say to place areas with shadow detail on Zone I?

  9. #19
    Bruce Osgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, N.Y. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,417
    Images
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
    Didn't Ansel say to place the shadows on Zone III? In which book did he say to place areas with shadow detail on Zone I?
    I don't think he said where to put the shadows, except that placing the shadows rather than the highlights would be easier to do accurately. There is more room for error when placing the shadow than there is in placing a highlight and still getting a desirable print from it. I don't think he felt it necessary or desirable that every image have maximum black or white.

  10. #20
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,637
    Images
    4
    But, interestingly Fred Picker did believe almost every picture should have a bit of maximum black and maximum white (or at least Zviii).

    In the last years of his newsletter he was advocating determining exposure by picking the high value and placing it on Zviii. (He also advocated making a second exposure with the high value at Zvi1/2 so that one had choices when printing. I believe this was after he began selling multi-contrast paper and heads.) Anyway, when I started putting the high value on Zviii and letting the shadows fall where they may, my pictures really went to hell.
    juan

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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