Hasselblad with Lee ND Grads

[pressureworld]

I recently shot my Hasselblad at the beach with the Lee Big Stopper and my sky was blown out. I'm thinking of adding ND grad filters to my kit I'm thinking of getting a Lee 0.6 Hard Grad filter (2 stop) filter.

If my exposure is 1/15 of a second = 1 minute with the Big Stopper (10 Stop filter) would this change with the addition of a Lee ND 0.6 Hard Grad filter (2 stop) filter, or would my exposure still be 1 minute. I'm very confused.

I'm taking a photography trip to San Francisco in two weeks and I'm trying to avoid expensive mistakes.
I was very disappointed with this picture and will welcome any advice Fuji Acros 100.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

That sky doesn't look blown out at all. It may not be dark gray/black between the clouds (for that you'd want a red filter, rather than a ND filter), but you have distinct clouds separate from the background sky. If anything, I'm surprised you have so much sky detail given the 1 minute exposure, unless it was a particularly windless day (something you'll be unlikely to experience in San Francisco, especially photographing in and around the Golden Gate).

 

[cramej]

I agree with FlyingCamera. This particular shot could have also benefited from a polarizer unless you're working with a wide lens. Exposure is fine, just needs more contrast (orange or red filter).

 

[benjiboy]

If you "want to avoid expensive mistakes", don't take your Hasselblad on the beach if can avoid it.

 

[jeffreyg]

You could consider split grade printing as well.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[pressureworld]

I appreciate all the advice and helpful comments. Good to know the exposure is decent.

 

[Brook Hill]

I appreciate all the advice and helpful comments. Good to know the exposure is decent.

With a grad nd filter which is used to darken the sky you calulate the exposure without the grad nd. So with your 1min exposure you would not change this with the grad in place, this would reduce the exposure of the sky and darken it. This works fine where you have a bright sky relative to the rest of the frame.

Tony

 

[pressureworld]

Thank you Tony

 

[Chris Livsey]

How were you developing the Acros, this result, well exposed etc, doesn't look like Acros? Is this a sc*n of a negative or a print? It looks very flat and lacking in contrast, this is not the place to discuss that kind of curve manipulation but to get it "right" in camera with a yellow/orange/red/polariser filter you still need development/sc*n that isn't go to flatten the tones which appears to me to have happened.
I'm also not sure why you wanted to use such an aggressive ND filter, in the scene the water is so far away from the foreground that any smoothing effect is rather lost and the definition of the clouds is diminished, that is your artistic decision but I can't help but wonder if a standard exposure would not have worked just as well. A neutral grad for the sky will work but given the highlight preservation of film you could probably equally well "recover" the sky with enlarger manipulation in a print (although granted fixing in camera is a good idea) or with an unmentionable graduated digi**l filer post sc*n.

Note: I appreciate the demarcation of analog/digital but in this kind of discussion where we are looking at a digital image it is difficult to give only specific analog advice when what is posted, unavoidably, is in the digital domain.
Is there an FAQ section to guide us or do we just push it to the point of being moderated? (I know start a new thread )

 

[Sirius Glass]

A red filter will make the blue sky black or almost black, try a yellow or an orange filter.

 

[Dan Daniel]

A red filter will make the blue sky black or almost black, try a yellow or an orange filter.

When I tried a variety of filters with ACROS, I ended up rather confused. It seemed that yellow did almost nothing, orange did a touch of darkening, and red was closer to medium yellow as I was used to for other films. ACROS has an different spectral response- ortho-pan, not simple pan. Maybe this makes a difference? When you say the sky might go black with a red filter, is this based on ACROS specifically?

OP, your image looks very typical of ACROS in my experience. A certain flatness, lots of midtones. I've used it for years and simply assume that I will be adding contrast in printing/processing. And that I will be doing some significant dodging and burning to pull areas up and down in both tone and contrast. FYI, the Bay Area this time of year will have days after a storm goes through with very clear dark blue skies but most days the sky is pretty bland.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A red filter will make the blue sky black or almost black, try a yellow or an orange filter.

When I tried a variety of filters with ACROS, I ended up rather confused. It seemed that yellow did almost nothing, orange did a touch of darkening, and red was closer to medium yellow as I was used to for other films. ACROS has an different spectral response- ortho-pan, not simple pan. Maybe this makes a difference? When you say the sky might go black with a red filter, is this based on ACROS specifically?

OP, your image looks very typical of ACROS in my experience. A certain flatness, lots of midtones. I've used it for years and simply assume that I will be adding contrast in printing/processing. And that I will be doing some significant dodging and burning to pull areas up and down in both tone and contrast. FYI, the Bay Area this time of year will have days after a storm goes through with very clear dark blue skies but most days the sky is pretty bland.

Ortho films do not follow the same rules [the same results] that pan films get.

 

[pressureworld]

How were you developing the Acros, this result, well exposed etc, doesn't look like Acros? Is this a sc*n of a negative or a print? It looks very flat and lacking in contrast, this is not the place to discuss that kind of curve manipulation but to get it "right" in camera with a yellow/orange/red/polariser filter you still need development/sc*n that isn't go to flatten the tones which appears to me to have happened.
I'm also not sure why you wanted to use such an aggressive ND filter, in the scene the water is so far away from the foreground that any smoothing effect is rather lost and the definition of the clouds is diminished, that is your artistic decision but I can't help but wonder if a standard exposure would not have worked just as well. A neutral grad for the sky will work but given the highlight preservation of film you could probably equally well "recover" the sky with enlarger manipulation in a print (although granted fixing in camera is a good idea) or with an unmentionable graduated digi**l filer post sc*n.

Note: I appreciate the demarcation of analog/digital but in this kind of discussion where we are looking at a digital image it is difficult to give only specific analog advice when what is posted, unavoidably, is in the digital domain.
Is there an FAQ section to guide us or do we just push it to the point of being moderated? (I know start a new thread )

Chris this was a shot of the negative developed by a professional lab. It's shot on Acros 100 @125. I was rushing and slightly underexposed the image. I didn't expect it to be so flat and figured an ND filter would be the answer. ( still disappointed with the sky) You are correct the water is to far back in the shot for the filter used. It's all a learning moment for me. I'm glad you pointed it out.

Dan thank you, Again I was honestly shocked at how flat this film looked. I didn't know if I was completely at fault for this. It was good to hear your experience.

Sirius, thanks for the help on this and previous threads