MattKing
Moderator
Christopher:
In case you wanted to re-populate your signature line, this would be an excellent choice.
Particularly when you consider who said it!
Christopher:There are no good short cuts.; only bad compromises.
Christopher:
In case you wanted to re-populate your signature line, this would be an excellent choice.
Particularly when you consider who said it!
I may just stick with FP4.
.
Yes I'd have thought that for most of the year at Houston's latitude, a film like FP4 should be fine.
pentaxuser
Do you mean the differences between say FP4+ and HP5+ as negatives? In that case I am not at all sure I could either. What I was referring to was the difference between say Houston's average light over the year and my average light in the middle of the U.K. when FP4+'s speed might not be enough for quite a lot of the time, depending of course on what I was taking a pic of. I'd expect much less of an issue with necessary shutter speeds for any pics involving motion in Houston.I don't know that I could tell you the difference between any of them at this point, to tell you the truth.
Do you mean the differences between say FP4+ and HP5+ as negatives?
Whoa your curse worked. Can you undo it. I didn’t make Brilliant Bromide but last night I made some of the worst prints I have ever seen.Well, if you do decide to become the reincarnation of Picker, please reinvent Brilliant Bromide paper, and I'll spend a lot of money (but not listen to your exposure advice). He was quite a character - behaved like a patent medicine when he really didn't need to. I have some of his excellent darkroom gadgets. I was never a sucker for his "fine art reference prints", which one highly skilled printer described as the some of the worst prints he'd ever seen.
If you go through the trouble of the film speed test, and the film development test, do your printing times become standardized?
For instance, if your predetermined exposure of 15 seconds gives you zone I and zone VIII, and nothing changes, can you always just stick any negative in the enlarger for 15 seconds as a starting point and get the full range of print values, or do you still have to do the test strip thing?
Yes, the background itself would be identical for all versions, if you printed each neg to the same time. I was illustrating simply how reading a 'standard target' could result in an altered exposure because the 'stadard' itself deviated in brightness (as shown in my examples)/ so you need be be carefult and consistent in your metering methods!
If you used an Averaging meter, you CANNOT be consistent enough, not to the same level of consistency of a spotmeter.And even the spotmeter could be fooled, if I had spotmetered the 18% grey card for all the shots in my example! Just trying to illustrate for you some of the variables that can creep in to defy your efforts to expose for one 'standard print time'.
that’s why I whenever possible use an incident meter. Reflective meters introduce all kinds of variability.
IOW there is value to be had by both kinds of meters,n and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each, in a given photographic situation.
The two indicate different things! So there ought not be confusion caused, unless you do not understand what each is telling you....unless you’re a person like me where too many choices result in the inability to decide which to use when.
...unless you’re a person like me where too many choices result in the inability to decide which to use when.
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?