Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,828   Posts: 1,582,088   Online: 934
      
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    555
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Yes, if you have enough oomph in your light source to actually shine through those dense highlights without going into reciprocity failure territory of the paper... I love my Leitz V35 enlarger, and it has taken a little while to get calibrated with my negatives such that I have enough contrast, but also able to stay under 2 minute exposure times one or two stops from wide open on the enlarger lens.
    Thomas, I'm having trouble imagining a negative that requires a 2 minute enlarger exposure with a lens aperture of f5.6. I've been in photography professionally and can't remember making enlarger exposures more than 45 seconds or so under conditions where a neg was grossly overexposed.

    Perhaps a typo? Or do you have a lot of filtering in the light path? Please explain.
    -Fred

  2. #12
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,190
    Images
    6
    It's a creative call. I have this engrained habit of always exposing for shadow detail. If I decide not to have it in my final print, I burn in the shadows or bump up the contrast. Aesthetically, for my images, I like shadow detail. My images can look too heavy if there are inky shadows. But one photographer that does dark shadows well is Ralph Gibson.
    http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery.html
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    555
    Images
    1
    David, I agree with you and with Thomas' thoughts that shadow detail, for me, usually doesn't do a lot for overall intent and in most cases, in my opinion, detracts from the intent. Shadow detail usually adds too much unnecessary 'busyness' to my images. I like an image to convey the message, make the point, without a lot of 'background noise.' Just my take on what I like after 50 years in this game.
    -Fred

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    555
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    But one photographer that does dark shadows well is Ralph Gibson.
    http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery.html
    And Salgado!
    -Fred

  5. #15
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,554
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Aspen View Post
    Thomas, I'm having trouble imagining a negative that requires a 2 minute enlarger exposure with a lens aperture of f5.6. I've been in photography professionally and can't remember making enlarger exposures more than 45 seconds or so under conditions where a neg was grossly overexposed.

    Perhaps a typo? Or do you have a lot of filtering in the light path? Please explain.
    Not a typo. It's how long it would take with my Leitz Focomat V35 with a negative of what I consider a bit more than normal density. It takes a bit longer with the Minolta C3 enlarger, and a bit less time with the Omega Pro-Lab if I use the 150W bulb.
    I print using contrast filtration on multigrade papers, the Omega is a condenser model where I use Ilford filters, the Leitz has a multi contrast head, and the Minolta is dichroic color head. The Leitz has a way of removing all of the filters in the light path, and that increases the printing speed by about one stop, compared to Grade 2 filtration.

    Normal exposure time for me is between 22 seconds and 64 seconds at f/5.6 with a piece of 8x10 or 11x14 paper. If I developed my negatives to one stop denser (by overexposing one stop and not compensating in development), my enlarger exposures would be between 44 and 128 seconds. That's two minutes. What is so strange about that? I like what I get from fairly dense negatives.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #16
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,554
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    It's a creative call. I have this engrained habit of always exposing for shadow detail. If I decide not to have it in my final print, I burn in the shadows or bump up the contrast. Aesthetically, for my images, I like shadow detail. My images can look too heavy if there are inky shadows. But one photographer that does dark shadows well is Ralph Gibson.
    http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery.html
    And Gibson both overexposes and overdevelops... Isn't that funny?!
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    I don't find Thomas's numbers strange. There are several variables. But I have quite a few images that can require highlight burning sequences in the minutes depending on the enlarger used. As long as your negative stays flat, no problem.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    555
    Images
    1
    Thanks, Thomas, for taking the time for an explanation; I learn something new each day!
    -Fred

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    555
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I don't find Thomas's numbers strange. There are several variables. But I have quite a few images that can require highlight burning sequences in the minutes depending on the enlarger used. As long as your negative stays flat, no problem.
    Michael, I do the same but quite often the lens is stopped down to f11 or so to allow time for manipulation.
    -Fred

  10. #20
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,190
    Images
    6

    Yes to a photo nerd

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    And Gibson both overexposes and overdevelops... Isn't that funny?!
    It's always good to have some shadow detail in the bank with your negs right? You might want to use it later. If you want no shadow detail by under exposing your film, you're sure of yourself. It's like doing a crossword puzzle with a pen.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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