B&W Latitude Mistake

[ColColt]

Yesterday I went out to an old cemetery to do some shooting. I'm accustomed to having HP-5 in the camera and rate it at ASA 250. I'm use to that and most times know the exposures in sun and shade so, don't use the meter.

I had forgotten that I put FP-4 in the camera instead of HP-5 and went through half the roll using exposures I would have used for ASA 250 instead of ASA 100 I shoot with FP-4. After realizing my mistake I made my rounds again to the places I had shot and did 6-8 all over again...this time with the exposure at 125 @f8 instead of 250 @f8. After developing, they actually turned out not bad at all. A bit thinner but nonetheless they scanned great. What's the old saying, "familiarity breeds contempt"

 

[BrianShaw]

I've done that before too... and maybe even in the same cemetery. I've hung out in many TN cemeteries... and MA, and ME, and CA, and UK...

It really is amazing how film latitude can make up for exposure errors!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What's the old saying, "familiarity breeds contempt"

Ansel Adams would have said just the opposite. In the preface to his book The Negative he makes the case for using only one film so that you are always confident of your results. You would have experienced no problem had you always used either HF5 or FP 4. The film latitude will save this situation.

 

[ColColt]

Ansel Adams would have said just the opposite. In the preface to his book The Negative he makes the case for using only one film so that you are always confident of your results. You would have experienced no problem had you always used either HF5 or FP 4. The film latitude will save this situation.

Yep-I understand that but, sometimes you want to use another film. I've carried two cameras before,
one with HP-5 and the other with FP-4 and didn't do what I did yesterday...old timers problem.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

After developing, they actually turned out not bad at all. A bit thinner but nonetheless they scanned great.

Unlike the dyes in color films, the silver in B&W films scatters the light passing through the image. This makes B&W films more challenging to scan, and thinner negatives will scan better than dense negatives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ansel Adams would have said just the opposite. In the preface to his book The Negative he makes the case for using only one film so that you are always confident of your results. You would have experienced no problem had you always used either HF5 or FP 4. The film latitude will save this situation.

I make a point of shooting films with ISO 400 for color and black & white. That way I have fewer problems when I switch between the Hasselblads, 4"x5", 35mm, panoramic camera, single frame ...

 

[ColColt]

Unlike the dyes in color films, the silver in B&W films scatters the light passing through the image. This makes B&W films more challenging to scan, and thinner negatives will scan better than dense negatives.

Due to the sort of software I use for scanning, Nikon Capture NX2, it wont accept a scan of a B&W negative without first scanning it as a color negative. I use that because when I "have" to use the DSLR I shoot in RAW and it converts that and opens it for post processing. Sort of strange it can't open a B&W negative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Gee, I use an enlarger so I do not need to use a scanner.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Gee, I use an enlarger so I do not need to use a scanner.

Ah, but some of that scattering also occurs when light passes through your negative when enlarging.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Gee, I use an enlarger so I do not need to use a scanner.

Ah, but some of that scattering also occurs when light passes through your negative when enlarging.

Yes, but then I do not worry about things that I cannot control.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Yes, but then I do not worry about things that I cannot control.

Yes, but you CAN try to avoid over exposing your negatives

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh, I stopped over exposing years ago. I found that it was counter productive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not big on under exposing either.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Years ago I found out that trying to use two different films on the same shoot was counter productive. That I was better satisfied with the results if I concentrated on one or the other. Shooting two films is a bit like trying to converse and play the piano at the same time. It doesn't work very well. It mainly involves visualization. So in the end results were far better if I decided that it was a color or a B&W day and worked from there. Same applied to using two widely different B&W films.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have no problem switch between Kodak Portra 400 120 film and Kodak Tri-X 400 120 film by changing backs. Switch back and for makes me see the same composition in different ways and produces more productivity.

 

[bdial]

Switching between emulsions or speeds isn't a big deal. but you do need to keep your wits about you.
I've done it many times, either because of choice, or it was a client requirement.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

When I am photographing color or B&W I am looking for something other than just an image. That's easy you want color -- use color, B&W use ... But the two mediums are very different and require a different way of looking at things. On a very basic level it has been said that the subject of a color photo is the color itself. One of my favorite images is that of a group of canoes pulled up on the river bank. Each canoe is a different color. Without the color the image would be rather prosaic at best. It is the color that is the subject. That was my point. Not the task of switching backs back and forth.

Using two different speeds of film also requires different thnking. With slow films textures become important. With fast films grain and large shapes, shadows, etc. It's all easy to gloss over if you don't really think about results.