Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rabiner [SMTP:mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 4:16 PM > > BOB KRAMER wrote: > > > > That's my understanding as well. Overdeveloping increases contrast. > That's > > why I rate tri-x at 200 and underdevelop. To reduce contrast (and to > get > > more shadow detail). Works great! > > > > Bob Kramer > > > Overdeveloping increases contrast but you don't need to also overexpose. > As a matter of fact you'd have more contrast if you UNDEREXPOSED and > overdeveloped. > They call it "Pushing." > I call it unerexposeing and overdeveloping. > DEVELOP FOR THE HIGHLIGHTS AND EXPOSE FOR THE SHADOWS. > The highlights are those black areas of the neg. > The shadows are the thin, almost clear areas of the neg. > Mark Rabiner > [BOB KRAMER] Mark, I overexpose the film because the shadows on the negatives were black and void of detail. Only way to get the detail is to overexpose, or change metering technique. I meter with an incident meter, so I overexpose to compensate for the lack of shadow detail that resulted from the metering technique and whatever other variables (development technique, equipment idiosyncrasies and calibrations, etc.) are also thrown into the mix. I could of course use a spot meter and count zones to place the shadows where I want them, but this is not very practical when shooting fast on the street. Plus, I am looking to reduce contrast, not increase it. The Summicron lens is a contrast monster that must be tamed! The underdevelopment brings the contrast back in line. Do what it takes to get shadow detail and highlights that aren't blocked, I say! BK