I DID understand what you were saying..but I can see where if someone did not read this thread carefully they could get confused. Would be kind of hard to meter both the shadows and the highlights and try and force the exposure. In fact, do you not do this with the development? Would seem if you want to affect the change on the highlights N, N+, N- development is the way to do it - Right?
One thing I have done, is found a Zone reference (calculator if you will) on line (same one View Camera printed a few years ago). This helps me to 'see' where the highlights fall if the shadows are placed on Zone III or IV. I am sure that for those of you that have done this for a while you actually 'See' the zones (No, I don't think you see the zone I, II, etc on objects, but in a way I guess you do), but as a novice, this is a great tool.
Any how, no matter how bad they are I will post anything I get done, and will try to keep good field notes and darkroom notes.
I DID understand what you were saying..but I can see where if someone did not read this thread carefully they could get confused. Would be kind of hard to meter both the shadows and the highlights and try and force the exposure. In fact, do you not do this with the development? Would seem if you want to affect the change on the highlights N, N+, N- development is the way to do it - Right?
One thing I have done, is found a Zone reference (calculator if you will) on line (same one View Camera printed a few years ago). This helps me to 'see' where the highlights fall if the shadows are placed on Zone III or IV. I am sure that for those of you that have done this for a while you actually 'See' the zones (No, I don't think you see the zone I, II, etc on objects, but in a way I guess you do), but as a novice, this is a great tool.
Any how, no matter how bad they are I will post anything I get done, and will try to keep good field notes and darkroom notes.
Thanks for the help so far!
Mike,
I agree with what you have said about development being the control through which we alter the density range (contrast) of the negative. There are other means that one can employ that afford this at the exposure stage but that is another topic for another time.
On the subject of seeing zones or their tonal representations on a print, one of the things that has proven helpful to me is to make projections of the actual "zone" densities on enlarging paper. This is most accurately done with the Stouffer calibrated step wedge. From that one can "see" what the actual negative densities convert to in tonal representations on the print. The step wedge will allow that in 1/2 stop increments.
.... This is most accurately done with the Stouffer calibrated step wedge. From that one can "see" what the actual negative densities convert to in tonal representations on the print. The step wedge will allow that in 1/2 stop increments.
Hello Donald,
Thanks for all of your input thus far, quite valuable information. When discussing the Stouffer calibrated step wedge, are we talking about the projection wedge or the other (sorry, transmissive the correct term here)? From searches I have done, seems like there are different opinions (like everything else in photography), but if I were to purchase one (it would be a 4x5) I would like to get it right the first time. Looks like you can contact print one, or projection print from the enlarger..would the contact printed be OK? I can see using a calibrated wedge, and Stouffer seems like a much better buy than the Kodak ones.
Mike the projection wedge will work just fine. Since the consideration is density it really doesn't make that much difference for this test. I have the 21 step tablet with incremental .15 density divisions. One can project it down onto the paper or contact print it on the paper. That way the actual density scale can be seen as it manifests itself in tonal scale on the paper.
Well, interesting trip..found several White Churches to photograph, but only ended up photographing one. (see Attached scan of negative). Flat lighting at times, no camera at other times.
The one shown here was off by a corn field, that had just been cleared. Used the Crown Graphic, 135mm lens. Like the way it has scanned and will print it in the coming days.
Donald, appreciate your advice - this was done at f/22 at just under 1/10 sec mark (more like 1/2 sec).
Funny, seems like I never get much done when visiting family..but always good to see them.
Well, interesting trip..found several White Churches to photograph, but only ended up photographing one. (see Attached scan of negative). Flat lighting at times, no camera at other times.
The one shown here was off by a corn field, that had just been cleared. Used the Crown Graphic, 135mm lens. Like the way it has scanned and will print it in the coming days.
Donald, appreciate your advice - this was done at f/22 at just under 1/10 sec mark (more like 1/2 sec).
Funny, seems like I never get much done when visiting family..but always good to see them.
Looks a very nice shot. Given the amount of sky, dark foliage and white church with some of it in shadow, would a normal reflective meter not have given a similar exposure to the one used? In other words would the whole scene have integrated to a 18% grey anyway?
Mike,
That's a beauty! I love the scan...can't wait to see a print!
Funny though... when I looked at it, I thought it was a church I shot when I first started shooting that is just a wee bit north of here. I thought... shame on you for coming up here & not calling me! haha Must be churches get the "sears" kit for standard white churches!
Originally Posted by photomc
Adv Reply
In fact, do you not do this with the development? Would seem if you want to affect the change on the highlights N, N+, N- development is the way to do it - Right?
.
haha Must be churches get the "sears" kit for standard white churches!
