Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,807   Posts: 1,581,460   Online: 1056
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Bruce Barnbaum would not like to have the poorer quality - it is measurable in terms of detail and grain and sharpness. Measurable but it's not much. Most amateurs are quite satisfied with the compromise you might make. Bruce and other very quality conscious photographers will strive for the very best negative, I personally am happy with a lot. But I also get great pleasure from understanding and applying these exposure and processing techniques.
    Bill - This is not quite true as far as Barnbaum is concerned. He is pretty much unconcerned with graininess and resolution. For example he will readily give significant overexposure when applying expansion development, and like Adams and others, in the end his negatives are pretty much all over the place, requiring plenty of darkroom gymnastics.

    I'd also add he's a perfect example of someone who has learnt to make excellent prints of his negatives despite his exposure/development processes not doing what he thinks they are doing (to go back to Benskin again). In the book, he's proud to say he's never owned a densitometer, and then proceeds to present a fictitious (and incorrect/misleading) H&D curve to support his "bellows analogy", zone IV shadow placement discussion, and extreme compensation techniques (which would obliterrate highlight detail if they actually did what he says they do).

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,069
    Quote Originally Posted by mporter012 View Post
    So what I'm gathering is that the general suggestion would be, at this point, to use one camera with my in camera light meter and expose at its suggestion or open up one stop, and then develop as I see fit.


    mporter,

    Another one of reason I suggest you don't bother just yet (which I didn't explain before) is that despite what the books say, N+1 exposure and 20% less development or the other way around, the fact is, those manipulations do not make that much difference and it's such that if you aren't trained to see the difference, you won't actually see it or appreciate it. I can tell you this with confidence because I actually did a multi-day experiment to try all the combinations. A long story short, I ended up with 9 prints with various combinations that are very difficult to see the difference from a normally processed reference print.

    At this point, I'd suggest you don't even bother "open one up" unless you have a specific reason why you want to do it.

    Mr. B and Mr. A (Mr. Adams) along with many others will go length on the benefit of these manipulations, and they are all telling the truth. What often get lost in interpretation is that the subtle change or benefit they are talking about. It won't make a night and day difference. It certainly is the level of change that can easily get buried in processing variations you will likely encounter for the first few months.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  3. #33
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,563
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Bill - This is not quite true as far as Barnbaum is concerned. He is pretty much unconcerned with graininess and resolution.
    Michael R 1974,

    Right. I enjoyed Barnbaum's enthusiasm in his video, but I know he oversimplifies. I know putting shadows on Zone IV isn't going to give the finest-grained, highest resolution negatives. So you are right, I shouldn't have named him as one who seeks these high quality characteristics in his negatives.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,082
    He'll put his shadows on Zones V or VI too if he wants to apply expansion development.

  5. #35
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,563
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    He'll put his shadows on Zones V or VI too if he wants to apply expansion development.
    Makes sense too, Fred Picker also later adapted Zone System to consider where highlights will likely fall.

    If you have the latitude (and are not concerned with grain/sharpness/resolution), it will help you keep print times consistent.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,082
    .... in the book Barnbaum specifically advocates against the notion of keep print times constant. He doesn't care if a negative is "thick" from a sharpness or graininess perspective. He gives lots of extra exposure to flat subjects needing expansion because he wants everything on the steepest part of the curve and wants the high values to fall quite high so they gain more density with increased development. The logic is sound in theory.

  7. #37
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,563
    Images
    46
    I don't really want to buy the book, but if I am going to keep misrepresenting him I guess I better.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,082
    Bill - in the end that's my point. You don't need his book. I don't recommend it. The "densitometry"/Zone System stuff is seriously flawed. He just seems to be a very stubborn, opinionated guy.

  9. #39
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Bill - in the end that's my point. You don't need his book. I don't recommend it. The "densitometry"/Zone System stuff is seriously flawed. He just seems to be a very stubborn, opinionated guy.
    It works for him, so it's ok for him, but he is one of the guys responsible for leading me un-necessarily down the un-needed extra exposure road.

    Like Michael I'd say pass on his teaching.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,274
    Images
    2
    I believe the idea is thru a test, set a ISO rating for your choice of film and developer to give a normal development for zone 5, which you carry across into your paper exposure and development. This sets a logical sequence that gives you a standard from start to finish. From there you set your N- and N+ film development, which is easier shooting cut film and from the beggining. What I did was to shoot a roll of a scene with no brightness change with under, average and overexposure up to three stops either way and develop the film in Diafine. I compared the negatives (either thru printing or scanning) and found out how much I could deviate and still get a good negative. But if your not interested in using a compensating developer, just shoot multiple exposures based on your tested film/developer. Film might not be as cheap as it use to be, depending on the film of course, but it's easier to carry one body then three, and perhaps a tripod as well. As concerns 3 backs for a MF body, it's the same amount of shoulder/backpack fun cause your lenses and accessories are going to up the pack weight. When I was younger I carried a big pack which became smaller and smaller till now it's a body with 2 lenses and a light tripod normally. Of course it just depends on what you need to accomplish.
    Last edited by waynecrider; 01-16-2013 at 01:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    W.A. Crider

Page 4 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