nworth
Allowing Ads
Oh, and don't underexpose unless you like grain and muddy shadows, or intend to print the shadows as solid black.
Where did you find this example? Have you tried to ask the photographer?
Are you sure it's even a film image and not a digital one?
I'm completely new to B&W film. I would like to get into the "fine art" style; dramatic contrast: View attachment 61830
I realize lighting is the biggest factor, but I also am not trying for a technically perfect exposure, meaning I don't want as much tonal detail as possible because that leads to a flatter image (from what I can tell).
I have some Pan F+ and some Acros 100. Do I need to push it in order to get this look?
anything made by a hassleblad looks like this
anything made by a hassleblad looks like this
Thanks for your advice, everyone. I realize it is something that will take years of careful attention and patience, and while my post came off a bit eager, I was simply trying to figure out the right direction to go in order to some day arrive there. The lack of shortcuts is one thing I love about film so much.
Everyone has been telling me to overexpose, but from what I can tell it looks washed out. For instance, in this photo I used an iPhone light meter app (I realize it's crude, but it's all I have at the moment) and set the EV compensation to 2 stops under. I then metered off the sky, which should have underexposed the image even more, if I'm not mistaken. Upon scanning it (unaltered), the image was still too bright for my tastes, and I had to drop the brightness maybe 1 stop-worth to get it looking like this: http://geometryofthought.tumblr.com/image/34321301137
My understanding up until this point was to underexpose the negative to get dramatic contrast, then print without altering it. It seems my concept of the photographic process was wrong. So the negative is for capturing the most tonal information, with adjustments to be made in the darkroom, correct? Rather than doing everything "in camera," so to speak...
The photographer is Hengki Koentjoro, who shoots with a Hasselblad. I have not tried to ask him; it's always the simplest and most direct solutions we seem to overlook, eh?
:munch:
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
exactly
It seems my concept of the photographic process was wrong.
It should be noted I own a Mamiya RZ67 and Mamiya 7 not a Hassleblad/Leica, is that why my shots end up like this instead?
Those are all about a minute exposure...
Sadly I can't recall what film, probably Tmax100 or tmax400 35mm in my M7 with pano adapter. It could be something else, I'm not home to look right now...
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
well,
you might have had some sort of hasselblad film in there without knowing it ?
i've used lomo film in my leica, and the photographs look kind of low-fi.
aside from that, i am not sure how you got such nice photographs out of your mamiya's,
were you thinking about using a hasselblad, or wishing you had one ?
i have sometimes thought of the wrong things while makingexposures ...
like warm summer days when it was cold and wintery, or the french countryside while photographing
in some sort of new england rust belt town / city, and when the film was processed it was
as if it was shot on vacation somewhere else ... maybe that is what was going on ?
whatever it is, its nice work, and goes to show that you don't need a hassleblad to make good photographs
Dammit, I need to sell my Hasselblad right now! It's obviously not working properly
You have to make that choice, if you simply underexpose and don't tell to processor what you want, they will try and fix your "mistake" and the result still won't be what you want.
That makes sense, though when you say "print" do you mean the creation of negatives, or actual prints? Because I've only had the lab produce negatives for me, which I then scanned using a film scanner without making any exposure adjustments or having any brightness controls enabled, and they all came out too bright.
That makes sense, though when you say "print" do you mean the creation of negatives, or actual prints? Because I've only had the lab produce negatives for me, which I then scanned using a film scanner without making any exposure adjustments or having any brightness controls enabled, and they all came out too bright.
Metaphorically, you have not adjusted the second exposure yet. Whether using an enlarger or a digital processes you need to adjust to get the output you want.
It was my understanding that my need to give the exposure a "second pass" (so to speak) was evidence of my incompetence. Meaning, that if I had exposed correctly, that no post adjustment would need to be made. But the correct way to go about is it capture as much tonality on the negative, then adjust exposure to taste when enlarging (or scanning), correct?
I think basically that what everyone is saying is expose for the shadows to get detail in them, and then if you want to print them black you can do so. But if you underexpose you will never be able to get information from them.
Some of us very much like the effect of the toe when shot at box speed
Prints that look like the one you referenced usually start out with the photographer striving to make the most expansive negative he can, and then printing it a little hard.
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?