Does that filtration effectivly remove the unnatural xenon spikes too?
Are there situations where you would not bother with correcting the light?
Ray
One overexposes to move off of the toe of the curve onto the straight line. Using one's "usual development" one ends up with greater contrast and more separation in the shadows.
I use a Wratten 80A color temp conversion filter on my enlarger to get close to daylight. I've checked it with a late-1980s vintage Minolta Color Meter and it brings the temp to 5400K, I think.
An 80B or 80C would drop the temp closer to 4600K, but since I'm testing film and not the meter, I figure being closer to 5500K was better.
And to add to my question about about the 'first excellent print' study. I doubt they adjusted film development times, something I certainly would be doing (less time) when the overexposure was most severe (long range subject).
Bill
Ok, so if I am understanding, the crux of it is that you zero in on an exposure that is not OVER or UNDER, right?Any value for X. It is actually Log E, but you can just use 1, 2, 3 etc, for the step numbers on the wedge.
PE
, but that curve looks like a paper curve.
Here are some quick and dirty negative film and paper curves that you should take a look at.
They are typical of what we worked with and in fact are drawn on some sheets of graph paper that I had here in a file cabinet. I hope they help you out.
PE
Given that it is a print curve, the print is exposed too far into the toe, and not enough in the shoulder. And, if it is a print curve or a reversed scan of a negative, I cannot say where you are!
PE
I re-read your post, just for clarification, in the diagram, the barn is not a "Print," but a "Scene," or, the image at the film plane. The values on the barn are not print values but scene values and the little zone wedge represents the input values to the curve on the x-axis. The lines to values on the barn are what you might aim at with a spot meter.
The scene was somehow represented in that picture, and that is what I cannot follow. Sorry. I'll take another look. However, optical density does not relate to log E in a scene, only in a print or negative.
PE
Just for clarification on another personal concept. I treat film as a recording device. In a manner similar to sound recording (which I also do). When you record a sound, you fit it to the bandwidth of the recording medium and the final intensity is set at mixdown time.
Likewise when 'recording' a visual scene with film, I want to capture all the tonal information in the scene (and will try to expose as such). Later, at my leisure in the darkroom, I'll pick-and-choose how much highlight and shadow I want to throw out (if any) at the time of printing.
Another CONCEPT I hold (that may or may not be true) is that I feel in my hands ANY contrast range of values actually recorded on the film (ie any or all values between the toe and shoulder) can be printed when one considers the range of techniques from flashing 00 paper and low contrast paper developer to high-contrast lith techniques.
tlitody,
You could capture and reproduce the tones, but the print would be ugly.
Bill
Let me ask you a question. If you have a scene which is 15 stops of brightness range, do you think you can reproduce all the tones in that scene in a print?
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?