Topic: Friday 31 ...

[jharr]

I don't think your exposure is necessarily off. It's just part of the equation. The right developer at the right temp for the right time with the right agitation also plays a part. There is flexibility with all of those factors when using modem film. It just takes a little experimenting to get it dialed in.

[MiguelCampano]

I don't think your exposure is necessarily off. It's just part of the equation. The right developer at the right temp for the right time with the right agitation also plays a part. There is flexibility with all of those factors when using modem film. It just takes a little experimenting to get it dialed in.

Well, thank you. I'm very critical of my own results, and I'm not sure why... Perhaps the constant desire of improving my technique/work. The good thing is that I find film photography quite addictive. Last weekend I walked around 25 miles just looking for stuff to take pictures of... And I've been trying different brands/sensitivities of film trying to find what I like best. Regarding developer, I'll stick to Ilfosol-3 for now. Fairly easy to use and cheap in my opinion.

[02Pilot]

As a general rule of thumb with negative film, if your shadows are good (i.e., where you expected them to be) your exposure was correct, and if your highlights are good your development was correct. There is of course more to it than that, but basically you're adjusting exposure and development to get the results you want. Be systematic in your experimenting and you'll get it nailed down faster.

[MiguelCampano]

As a general rule of thumb with negative film, if your shadows are good (i.e., where you expected them to be) your exposure was correct, and if your highlights are good your development was correct. There is of course more to it than that, but basically you're adjusting exposure and development to get the results you want. Be systematic in your experimenting and you'll get it nailed down faster.

So, as an example...

On a particularly sunny day, I could meter for the shadows and adjust highlights by shortening developing times by... 1 minute or so? 

[02Pilot]

As a general rule of thumb with negative film, if your shadows are good (i.e., where you expected them to be) your exposure was correct, and if your highlights are good your development was correct. There is of course more to it than that, but basically you're adjusting exposure and development to get the results you want. Be systematic in your experimenting and you'll get it nailed down faster.

So, as an example...

On a particularly sunny day, I could meter for the shadows and adjust highlights by shortening developing times by... 1 minute or so? 

Unless you're dealing with extreme contrast levels (full sun on snow plus a dark interior) you're unlikely to have to modify your dev time. Modern B&W negative film has a range of at least 10 stops (some considerably more than that), so there is a lot of latitude, especially in the highlights. Metering for shadows and developing normally is many people's standard practice. It may be, however, that your current developing scheme is a bit longer than it needs to be, so you need to get that dialed in first.

Not to pile on too much information at once, but I will say that I didn't really understand how to manage the exposure/development relationship until I came to understand the zone system. Ansel Adams' The Negative and Bruce Barnbaum's The Art of Photography were crucial in explaining this for me.

[Late Developer]

Agree with you on this, O2P. 

I had a dose of "what the hell settings do I need for this shot" when I was in Bologna in February.  I was shooting XP2 in very contrasty bright sun / deep shadow combined conditions.  I shot at EI 320 and took a reading off the nearest bit of "mid grey-ish" wall or pavement.  Standard development by the lab and a little tweak in LR got me negs with detail at both ends of the scale.

That said, in my view, there is nothing wrong with blown highlights and/or blocked shadows if that's how one sees the end result.  Lots of beautiful "chiaroscuro" work out there and we shouldn't have to be slaves to getting the exposure "conventionally" correct, every time.

[02Pilot]

That said, in my view, there is nothing wrong with blown highlights and/or blocked shadows if that's how one sees the end result.  Lots of beautiful "chiaroscuro" work out there and we shouldn't have to be slaves to getting the exposure "conventionally" correct, every time.

Certainly. I have absolutely no problem with using techniques to produce sub-optimal results for artistic purposes. It is, however, much easier to do so when you know how to reliably achieve optimal results.

[Late Developer]

That said, in my view, there is nothing wrong with blown highlights and/or blocked shadows if that's how one sees the end result.  Lots of beautiful "chiaroscuro" work out there and we shouldn't have to be slaves to getting the exposure "conventionally" correct, every time.

Certainly. I have absolutely no problem with using techniques to produce sub-optimal results for artistic purposes. It is, however, much easier to do so when you know how to reliably achieve optimal results.

Again, agreed. 

I'm currently learning how to play the guitar.  I've plonked away on bass guitar and strummed a few chords on my 6-string electric for many a year but without really being able to get past first base on the ability to play a tune, let alone write something for myself.  However, in my first lesson (last week - my second one is tonight) I learned more in an hour than I did since picking up the thing in the late 70s.  Ironically, the tutor isn't teaching me the "classical" way - chord construction, scales, etc - as I have no interest in being able to read the dots (certainly not for now).  I'm learning some very reliable and accepted musical "cheats" that get the job done and sound really good - especially if you pump the output through a serious distortion pedal 

The point is, as you say, creating artistic effects is perfectly acceptable (maybe even to be encouraged) but it's easier to do (and to do predictably rather than accidentally) when you already know how to get optimal results.

[jharr]

I have no interest in being able to read the dots (certainly not for now).

This reminded me of a time in college when I was working security at a concert where a lot of guitarists were playing different styles (mostly jazz). I was standing backstage with a couple of the musicians watching a guy perform a pretty intricate piece of music. One of the guys said disparagingly, "He can't read a single note of music." The other guy, without taking his eyes off the performer said, "Neither can Ray Charles." That was the end of that conversation.

[Late Developer]

I have no interest in being able to read the dots (certainly not for now).

This reminded me of a time in college when I was working security at a concert where a lot of guitarists were playing different styles (mostly jazz). I was standing backstage with a couple of the musicians watching a guy perform a pretty intricate piece of music. One of the guys said disparagingly, "He can't read a single note of music." The other guy, without taking his eyes off the performer said, "Neither can Ray Charles." That was the end of that conversation.

One of my favourites is about the difference between a jazz guitarist and a rock guitarist.  A rock guitarist plays four chords to a million people......

[MiguelCampano]

Thank you for the advice!