Best B&W Film at box speed.

[jacarape]

Thomas B's answer really is spot on, IMHO. I shoot about half of a roll at box speed, and the other half over or under using the shutter or aperture.

tk, interesting experience. Doesn't it now seem silly to over or under expose every shot on a roll?

 

[tkamiya]

tk, interesting experience. Doesn't it now seem silly to over or under expose every shot on a roll?

Why - and more importantly, why would I want to over-expose some shots and under-expose some on the same role? How would I develop THAT? Cut the film in half? (I'm not kidding - I've actually done that) If I mixed exposures and developed it one way, that would result in some frames thinner and some frames denser - I do not want that.

If I am at an interesting scene, I shoot few frames of something then look for something else in like or similar lighting. It's not that hard to spend a role. I do NOT shoot outside then go inside and expect to be able to shoot on the same role.

I'm really curious why you are saying I should be feeling silly here. Do you care to explain? I read nothing in Thomas's post that will indicate I should be.

 

[2F/2F]

Why - and more importantly, why would I want to over-expose some shots and under-expose some on the same role? How would I develop THAT? Cut the film in half? (I'm not kidding - I've actually done that) If I mixed exposures and developed it one way, that would result in some frames thinner and some frames denser - I do not want that.

If I am at an interesting scene, I shoot few frames of something then look for something else in like or similar lighting. It's not that hard to spend a role. I do NOT shoot outside then go inside and expect to be able to shoot on the same role.

I'm really curious why you are saying I should be feeling silly here. Do you care to explain? I read nothing in Thomas's post that will indicate I should be.

Considering how good VC papers are now, I think you could remove stress from your life by not worrying so much about matching every shot on a roll of 35mm film in exposure and contrast. If you want to obsess about stuff like that, why even shoot small format?

And you would normally expose some shots, underexpose some shots, and overexpose some shots on the same roll to change how the low tones are rendered in each neg. No disaster is going to occur if you don't idealize development for every shot on the roll. And there is no rule stating that if you expose a certain way, you must process a certain way.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I should explain that when I shoot serious work that I care about, and intend to eventually print, I gauge what the lighting conditions are with my meter, and then I shoot a whole roll in those conditions. It could be a portrait session, an early morning landscape outing, urban landscapes in very high contrast lighting, or night photography, etc... I never mix over- and under-exposure on the same roll. That would not work very well in my opinion.

There are times that I use the 35mm camera more for documentation, like a wedding, a party, vacation trip, or similar, where I have all kinds of mixed lighting on the same roll of film. Then it becomes a compromise, where I aim for a happy medium, and I usually end up scanning the resulting frames. It works fine for that purpose. Usually there is enough latitude in the film to make even pretty good prints, and once in a while excellent even if I happen to strike a happy coincidence with exposure...

But I always take great care in exposing my film so that I can fine tune the results for a particular lighting condition, in order to get that very last bit of performance out of the film in order to step up from a 'pretty good' print, to a (in my opinion) really fine print. In my darkroom, and in my prints it makes a big difference.

 

[tkamiya]

Um.... following the same logic, why even bother to do do any of what we are talking about here? When I go out, I look first and try to apply what I've learned so far and try to get the best image I can. I don't just shoot and think about improving my result in "post" processing. (ie. in darkroom) Especially in a brightly lit scene with sky, over-expose/under-develop combination made it so much easier to get far better results - without extensive burning-in. The result suits my taste much better. At least that's how I enjoy my hobby.

 

[2F/2F]

My point was only that you can do a lot to change your results by exposure alone, with a shared development time as a compromise. Compromise on the side of underdevelopment if you have shot pix that need it. If you need to make something else on the roll more contrasty, you can do it fairly easily.

Your idea that what I wrote is a logical fallacy is, well...a logical fallacy! It does not follow that my suggestion (and that's all it was) about possibly easing up on the technical obsession and allowing some slop into your work when shooting 35mm means that we ought not pay any attention to light or exposure at all.

Is it not logical to want to minimize the amount of monkeying around when using a format whose greatest strength is its low monkeying around factor (MAF)? If the goal is to save gas, do you drive the hot rod, but do it gently?

 

[tkamiya]

I do not think the same as you do. I have been RE discovering how capable 35mm format really is. I do not believe chaning exposure and development time that much of "monkeying around" and "obsessing." If I can get what I want by doing what I do, I will do so - without stressing and obsessing. You are welcome to do what you want and advocate what you believe. You have no need to convince me. Thank you.

 

[2F/2F]

You have no need to convince me. Thank you.

You asked a question or two. I answered with my outlook on the situation, which you are free to consider or not consider. Why are you getting short for simply suggesting that you need not go to such lengths to get good pix out of 35mm?