Exposing Tri-X and T-Max, how flexibile are they?

moodlover,

Here's some reference info on incident metering, (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The other thought I wanted to bring up, and the reason for my questions above, is that when using negative film (any negative film): there is no direct/absolute/perfect/specific/exact connection between camera exposure and the print we make from it.

Negatives are only truly underexposed when the shadow detail you expect to print isn't printable. If the shadow you want can be printed nicely (while ignoring the rest of the print) then the negative is not underexposed (that is not to say there aren't other problems to deal with).

Negatives are simply "an intermediary storage device" and there is typically plenty of "extra information" (shadow and highlight) available to us on most negatives that are shot at box speed and where an incident meter was used as you describe.

It is in my experience quite rare to print the entire range of tones typically caught on any negative. For example I can typically make prints that are essentially indistinguishable from each other from negatives that were shot from 1-stop under to 2-stops over. I have tested that on T-max 400, Delta 100 & 400, HP5, Tri-X, FP4, Portra, Superia, ...

The big difference between the preferences for camera exposure you see in the responses above, are personal. They are real but based on differences in the subject matter, style, and taste of the individual.

Assuming your kit is in good repair, using you incident meter as you described should result in well exposed films every time, period. If it doesn't something in your kit may be broken, or you may have a style that needs a different meter setting.

The only way you are going to figure this out is to bump the limits. Experiment with 800, 1600, and 50 for your T-max 400, develop normally (for 400) then print them. Adjust accordingly to your results.

moodlover,

I'm also curious why you thought the incident metered scene was underexposed.

Because if you were doing studio lighting, that is often very "flat" and you might get muddy prints.

But the solution to that problem is not to expose more.... It is to develop more.

If that has anything to do with your problem, then being aware of your Contrast is important. If I were doing studio lighting I would very likely develop to a Contrast Index of 0.8 and this would make the result "seem" brighter on the print.

Hi Mark

Before we frighten the OP away...
I get similar symptoms with my weston meters I have four and compare them with one another.
If OP can judge zones off a neg OP has a densiometer or a scanner and can do sums.
OP needs to do experiments instead at 100, 200, and 400 to decide what gamma to develope negs.
Given what sort of wet printing and type of enlarger is to be used.

This is generic advice for mono portraits, or it was a few decades ago.

Not everyone likes Citizen Kane cine noir style of shadows?

An 'exposure meter' is only a light meter

Noel

Xmas said:

Hi Mark

Before we frighten the OP away...
I get similar symptoms with my weston meters I have four and compare them with one another.

Click to expand...

Exactly, one of the most frustrating parts of camera work is metering that does not make sense.

Part of the problem is that our subject matter, say a face, isn't flat. There are any number of possible readings a reflective meter may return. An incident meter though, used as the OP suggests will typically provide one.

An incident meter, in good repair, provides a reliable and objective reference point.

Having an objective reference point allows us to then judge, and learn, how a reflective meter behaves with various subjects and lighting conditions.

In short, we can remove some frustration.

Xmas said:

If OP can judge zones off a neg OP has a densiometer or a scanner and can do sums.

Click to expand...

We don't know how the OP is judging the negs, so I asked. Even if a densitometer is in play, the OP should understand that the exact placement of any zone from the scene, is in reality a variable, not a specific point or range.

Adams described one, others have defined different points. The exact density of any one point on the negative is irrelevant to the print.

Xmas said:

OP needs to do experiments instead at 100, 200, and 400 to decide what gamma to develope negs.
Given what sort of wet printing and type of enlarger is to be used.

This is generic advice for mono portraits, or it was a few decades ago.

Click to expand...

Yes, generic and old are both reasonable descriptions of that advice.

The exceptional VC paper we now have, to a great extent, allows us to ignore film gamma adjustments.

Xmas said:

Not everyone likes Citizen Kane cine noir style of shadows?

Click to expand...

The idea of going farther from box speed is to find the limits, to see what works. It is not to ignore testing the more normal ranges.

Bill Burk said:

moodlover,

I'm also curious why you thought the incident metered scene was underexposed.

Because if you were doing studio lighting, that is often very "flat" and you might get muddy prints.

But the solution to that problem is not to expose more.... It is to develop more.

If that has anything to do with your problem, then being aware of your Contrast is important. If I were doing studio lighting I would very likely develop to a Contrast Index of 0.8 and this would make the result "seem" brighter on the print.

Click to expand...

I agree that the problem sounds much more like a contrast issue, than one of exposure.

Adjusting contrast with development or paper grade changes could solve some of the problem.

Flatness in studio lighting though is a completely separate item.

If the op's studio lighting was flat, that is because it was set up that way.

Studio lighting can be designed to be high or low in contrast, soft or hard, in studio a scene's look is fully adjustable.

I haven't read all the foregoing posts, but TMax and Tri-X are very different animals. If you want the best results with TMax, learn to test
and meter it strictly. It has a long straight line that drop abruptly at the bottom and will be relatively unforgiving of that "latitude" philosophy nonsense, especially if you underexpose it. If you shoot from the hip, exposure-wise, Tri-X is more appropriate.