That woman's going to be the death of me.

Here's the question I have for those roaming around in the critique gallery: I had a strobe pointing at the ceiling that gave off a nice even light. I metered it at f8 with a flash meter. The negatives came out really dense because of all the white in the photo. I figured this would happen. I've been meaning to mess around with development times, etc., but I've been too lazy so far. In the future when I encounter this much white, how should I expose/develop in order to get the most optimal negatives?

Ara, first of all nice shot and nice concept. Very creative... I like the contrast between the models hair and the white. This has the feeling that someone just broke in on the wrong woman and they got a real surprise.

Now, for exposure. I highly recommend that you do a development time test. Typically, Kodak's recommended development time for all of its film-developer combinations are too long. That's why you are getting such a dense negative. Like you, I use a Hassy 500. So, I would load a back with Tmax 100 and shoot a scene out doors that has a full range of tones in bright sunlight. You especially should include something like a white building as well as something dark. Shoot 3 rolls of film. The first would be the control roll... Develop that at Kodak's recommended time. Then, shoot another roll and process it at about 30% less. Create a proof sheet with both rolls (hopefully you've standardized on an accurate proofing time... make sure that you use the same proofing time for both rolls) and compare the test strips. You will see that the high values will be lower and more manageable on the film developed at the lower development time and the low values will be exactly the same on both. If you find that the high values have come down too much, develop the 3rd roll for about 15% more (than the lower developing time). If the high values on the 2nd roll are still too high, develop the film for about 15% less. With this amount of data you should find the proper development time. I promise you that if you do this exercise, you will create consistent negatives that will be as thin as possible while carrying the optimum range of tones. Please print these on photographic paper... Scanning them and then correcting them in Photoshop is inappropriate to use because you can literally do anything in photoshop... the real proof is whether your negatives are printable on photographic paper. You have some good shots... I hope that you start printing soon! .

esanford,
Thanks for the advice, I'm sure it will work. That seems to be an underlying problem with my photography... I can't standardize anything because I don't have a darkroom to make controlled prints in. I figured a scanner wouldn't give me an accurate benchmark on exposure, it seems to be more of a tool for getting stuff online. I know I need a darkroom and it is on the horizon for me at this point. The only problem is that once it's built, I'll probably have to put a bed in there because I won't want to leave.

Godard said that's all you need.

I know several people have said they like the other shot better, but honestly, I like this one more. Putting aside gun safety, it's the way art should be, enciting a drastic emotional response from the viewer. It really sucks you into the photograph. When I first looked at this shot, for a brief moment I was actually in that room, fully expecting to get shot in the next instant.

The other shot, well, it's a nice shot, but didn't make me react the same way.

Never disturb a woman when she's taking a bath...
I am sure Calamite Jane would pack a revolver in her bathtub.