Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,688   Posts: 1,482,355   Online: 776
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,578
    Images
    59
    I'm going to quote a portion of 2F/2F's post above, and then disagree with it .

    "This is one of the hardest situations for which to expose, develop and print. The best option is to avoid it if possible."
    The first part is correct, but I wouldn't suggest avoiding it.

    Some of the best portraits I have seen (and a couple I have taken) have been backlit. You do, however, need to be sure that there is an appreciable amount of light coming from the front. The light from an open sky comes at least close - reflection off of a light surface might be enough to make the difference, or you may be able to use fill flash.

    2F/2F is right about a whole bunch of other things, including the fact that the print is printed too dark. Cut the lab some slack though, they have to guess about what you wanted.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #12
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    I'm going to quote a portion of 2F/2F's post above, and then disagree with it .

    "This is one of the hardest situations for which to expose, develop and print. The best option is to avoid it if possible."
    The first part is correct, but I wouldn't suggest avoiding it.

    Some of the best portraits I have seen (and a couple I have taken) have been backlit. You do, however, need to be sure that there is an appreciable amount of light coming from the front. The light from an open sky comes at least close - reflection off of a light surface might be enough to make the difference, or you may be able to use fill flash.

    2F/2F is right about a whole bunch of other things, including the fact that the print is printed too dark. Cut the lab some slack though, they have to guess about what you wanted.
    It is not so much the practice of back lighting that I was referring to as it was having the sun in the frame, and having such a large area of white behind a small subject. Yes, back lighting is used effectively all the time. However, we must remember that in these cases, although the back light is the strongest light, it is not the main light. You set your exposure based on the main light, not the strongest light. The main light in a back-lit situation is coming from reflection off of the surroundings (and/or an artificial source).
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 10-29-2010 at 08:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #13
    dehk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    West Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    789
    If its scanned by the lab the lab's scanner probably tried to auto compensate the bright background. Most scanner does that.

  4. #14
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,943
    Of course, without seeing the negative, who can know. One sure test is to print the negative for the minimum exposure to produce maximum black on the film base. If the subject is still too dark, then, yes, it was under exposed.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    25
    Here are a couple of photos of the negs - unfortunately I couldn't get in close due to only having a long prime lens, so if anyone is able to make any judgements on these I don't know. I tried to keep my exposure correct to be as good a representation of the negs as possible.

    Its very interesting to expose for the main light and not the strongest light. I think this thought process will help, especially when thinking too about where my main light is coming from in backlit situations.

    I always feel I'm taking a gamble with backlight but I can't resist! I have seen some amazing backlit work and I need a lot of practice to get there!

    I would like to take some control over developing and scanning and its something I'm looking into. Starting shooting film is quite overwhelming, but, its the most excited I've felt about photography for a while!

    On the photo of the 3 negs, the one at the bottom came out beautiful, it was my favourite photo I have taken of my daughter for a long time and what makes me happy is that I didn't have to take 150-200 images on digital and even when I do, this one for me is better!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 002web.jpg   001web.jpg  

  6. #16
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,410
    If you take an incidental light reading in the normal way from the subject to the camera and note the reading, then take another another incidental reading pointing the receptor at the Sun and set the exposure at the average of the two readings the exposure will be correct whatever the direction of the light, this is called The Duplex Method.
    Ben

  7. #17
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,283
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    In the "close up shot" on the bottom frame it looks like the model's exposure placement is roughly somewhere in the middle so there's probably plenty of detail. Top frame seems to be similar.

    IMO, on those two frames, this this looks like a printing issue not an exposure problem.

    This brings me back to the thought that you need to talk with your lab and have them reprint it with the face given priority.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  8. #18
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Or print it yourself, again for best results! If you're going to do a hybrid workflow then scanning and printing yourself is best, otherwise as I said you can lose most of the detail and exposure before it gets to you. For B&W of course it is fun to print it yourself wet too.

    Or skip the auto-print and auto-scan stage, just get the negs developed and then talk to the lab about how you want to scan and/or print individual frames. You'll pay more but you'll get what you want.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  9. #19
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,344
    Images
    69
    negatives 4&6 look fine. 5 I can't really tell. I presume 4 is the one you showed a print on here. The face is a nice shade of gray and should print that way.

    You really need either a negative scanner or a darkroom to get consistent quality that exceeds the photolab.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    25
    Thanks everyone - I guess the bottom line is I need to develop and scan myself. I'll be looking into it!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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