Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/04/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I disagree. This: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Henley_Grange_Beach.jpg.html is Tri-X exposed at EI100 and developed in Xtol to manage a 3-4 stop wider luminance range than the film could handle at the higher CI that would be given by ISO exposure and development - CI 0.62 or thereabouts. Additional exposure is vastly less harmful to tonality than decreased exposure, but it does decrease sharpnness and increase grain. I don't mind losing a bit of both of them to get better tonality. Exposure and development are a continuum in parallel with a set of luminance inputs and contrast index outputs, and what you get with combinations of each are easily predictable once you have the inputs and the outcomes mapped. In a mostly poorly explained and vastly misinterpreted set of rules, this is the zone system. All you need to do it match the input and the output and you're set. To me, that's much more important than sticking slavishly to a prescribed exposure and development regime that assumes a luminance range that is theoretical rather than real world. I prefer tonality to sharpness and fine grain and I tailor exposure and development to match. This is based on 10,000 rolls of my own over the last 15 years or so and another 150,000+ rolls of other people's film that I've developed. Marty On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > I'm happy about histograms and staying out of the wet room. > > > -------------------- > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > mark at rabinergroup.com > Cars: ? http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb > > > > >> From: Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:05:50 -0500 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT - Wet Darkroom Wizards >> >> The only thing I could add is the obvious, to use just a few >> film/developer combinations until you know what you will get under >> various lighting conditions. ?There is just so much you can do with roll >> film. ?Until the Digital Age, most of my photo work was with large >> format. ?My Pentax spotmeter is covered with various film speeds for >> just a few film/developer combinations. ? After a while it was second >> nature to expose TriX or TMax100 with various film speeds for a >> particular developer/time (yes the zone system). ?Thank God for digital >> and that histogram thing on the back of the cameras. >> >> Ken >> >> On 4/29/2011 5:43 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>> Larry! It's rare I see a post on the lug which agrees with my position on >>> film developing and yours here really does. >>> What should kept in mind is this person of course did not expose this 400 >>> film at 100 on purpose. As if ?they did they'd not be asking for advice >>> on >>> dev times. >>> >>> 1. The first culprit as I see it is the long ongoing attitude since the >>> Speed Graphic days that in black and white neg shooting a little more >>> exposure is never ?a bad idea. When in doubt give it another stop. In >>> roll >>> film this turns out to be not just not so great advice it really is just >>> really bad advice.. An under exposed neg can still get you a gallery >>> quality >>> image. In the darkroom an over espoused neg will have you going through a >>> full box of paper and you'll never get it right. >>> In these days of scanning though I think you ?make a raw scan of such an >>> over exposed neg and you are in the no problemo department as far a >>> crafting >>> a quality image from that negative. As the crushed high areas can be >>> separated out without much problem in Photoshop and I'd think even >>> Lightroom. >>> The modern way this problem appears is not a retro over exposure ideal; >>> but a smug value held by photo intermediates. ?These are The Pullers. >>> Their >>> manifesto is that most films are over rated and need to have their ISO's >>> cut >>> in half. ?They know that Tri x is really iso 200 and so on and they feel >>> sorry for all the dumb masses rating it at 400 as they'll never no what >>> quality results are all about. They know not what they do. They are the >>> modern day ascetics. Winning through shooting at f 30th when a 60'th is >>> all >>> it needs. >>> The result make for over exposing everything . >>> As Tri x really is 400 and most films have ratings on the box fairly >>> right >>> on the money with most developer dilution combinations. >>> Pulling is over exposing with some under developing to keep the contrast >>> manageable. You've crushed the high tones. And the only way to un crush >>> them >>> is with some intermediate scanning technique. >>> >>> 2. A second culprit is The Massive Dev Pie Chart... >>> Who are providing information not misusing it. But its format seems to >>> lead >>> to that. Misused by a typical internet photo geek not someone who had >>> taken >>> real world photo classes or read real photo books its like: >>> "Gee I'll shoot Tmax 100 today rated at 400 and shoot Tmax 400 tomorrow >>> and >>> rate it at 100 and read the times off the times in this chart!" >>> Its not the charts fault that it leads to this. >>> But if you dumped a lot of dollar bills on the sidewalk somebody's going >>> to >>> come along and pick it up. >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------- >>> Mark William Rabiner >>> Photography >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >