[pure-silver] Re: Pure Black and Golden.
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:12:14 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "richard l. gifford" <rlgif@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 8:47 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Pure Black and Golden.
> Hi Dick,
>
> thank you for your valuable response. You have identified
> my problem in a nutshell. I certainly agree with you that
> I
> underexposed and overdeveloped.
>
>> The development advice from Way Beyond
>> Monochrome, using the standard development, would
>> probably correctly expand the average flat scene
>> normally expected on a gloomy day. But you're already
>> metering the dogs at III and VII, where you want to
>> place them, so you sure don't need any expansion.
>
> This is where my logic came undone! Instead of relating
> dev
> time to the weather conditions, I wouldn't have made this
> error if perhaps WBM had related it to the SBR instead...
> Oh well, nothing like learning from one's own experience
> :)
>
>> So it looks to me like you're both underexposed and
>> overdeveloped. The black dog is too far down, the
>> golden dog is too far up, neither dog is close to your
>> intended placement. It's asking a lot of a filter.
>>
>> Regards... Dick Gifford
>
> In fact, these two unfortunate errors I made in this
> exercise happened because:
> i) I somehow thought that a cloudy day would imply my
> scene
> would have a low brightness range. Wrong! The range of
> the intensity of REFLECTED light from the scene determines
> the scene brightness range (SBR) and NOT the absolute
> level
> of INCIDENT light (e.g. on my cloudy day). This is a
> subtle
> yet important difference, since we often equate bright
> sunny
> days with a high SBR and cloudy days with low SBR.
>
> ii) I didn't think twice about making the silly mistake of
> raising the ASA of the film in the wrong direction (from
> 400
> to 800). To make my testing easier, I should have instead
> lowered the ASA to overexpose the film. I know WBM
> suggests
> this, but somehow my logic went out the window.
>
> OK so moving on now, I have the other test roll left to
> process. The "Quick and Easy" method to customise my film
> speed and development in "Way Beyond Monochrome" suggests
> to
> under develop by 30% for a high contrast sunny day. And
> lower the ASA by 1 1/3 stops (e.g. 400ASA down to 160ASA).
> I've already exposed at 800ASA; is the best advice still
> to
> develop 30% less than the nominal(400ASA) time, or will
> this
> result in negatives that are too thin?
>
> regards
> Peter Badcock
>
Very approximately non tabular films will change contrast
about one paper grade by increasing or reducing the
development time about 1/3rd, i.e., 33%. The exposure should
be adjusted approximately one stop up or down More exposure
if the development time is reduced and visa versa.
Keep in mind that overexposing a little (up to a couple
of stops) does no harm while underexposure will quickly
loose shadow detail. Somewhat dense negatives require more
printing time but result in good prints while underexposed
negatives do not.
My own feeling is that its best to keep negative contrast
consistent and vary printing contrast.
Your point about the important factor being the ratio of
subject brightness rather than the quality of the light is a
profound one. I wish I had mentioned this but didn't even
think of it despite knowing it.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
