An underexposed negative will not produce enough silver in the shadows to print adequate detail, so the shadows will print as flat, textureless, muddy-gray tones
I like the Vestal book which is old(60's-70's) He writes as though he were speaking to you. In plain English.
Help ... I'm confused. I've recently become interested in film after a long stint using digital processes. I've begun reading Henry Horenstein's "Beyond basic photography" but I can't seem to move past something he says on page 6 ... "An underexposed negative will not produce enough silver in the shadows to print adequate detail, so the shadows will print as flat, textureless, muddy-gray tones". By that I presume he means that the same shadows given more exposure and the same amount of development would print darker. The prints on page 9 would tend to support that idea. The T shirt in the underexposed print in the middle of the page is indeed a flat, muddy-gray. The same T shirt in the over exposed print to the right is a nice crisp black ... I don't get it ... Doesn't less exposure mean less silver density everywhere on the negative ... so darker tones everywhere on the print?
Thanks Ralph! I understand Henry completely and understand the frustration that Greg had but I didn't know how to explain it.
Thanks for the responses all ... Might have a look at Vestal ...
Ralph ... Better with math?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?