How does this happen? Need help.

This might be me just being stupid, but I need help. I actually shot these images a few years ago. They are from a cabin that a friend of mine and I built while working on a farm.

So the question. Both of these images a shot on the same roll, Acros 100 at 100, and they were taken back to back. The light did not change. They were developed in Rodional. I did bracket them. The one that I really love is the higher contrast one. Why are the two images different, technically. Both are scanned and nothing done to them. The scanner scanned both with the same settings.

Is it simply underexposed a little, but then how did the high lights look so good.

cjbecker said:

The light did not change.... I did bracket them...Why are the two images different.
View attachment 47835

View attachment 47836

Click to expand...

you answered your own question. You bracketed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

cjbecker said:

Is it simply underexposed a little, but then how did the high lights look so good.

Click to expand...

To paraphrase Flotsam: "That is called latitude. It is supposed to be there."

2nd shot is a better composition.

Sent from my bum using flatulence.

But technically why did it have much higher contrast? thats the question.

How many stops or shutter speed was the difference between the two exposures? Each stop is either half or double the exposure depending on which way you go. Also your camera angle is different so if you were using a camera's meter and/or any "auto" feature the exposures may have been influenced by either or both.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

They were 1 stop different and it was hand meteted.

Not to question your story, but it almost looks like the top one had a yellow filter and the other was unfiltered. This is interesting.

When you underexpose, the highlights will retain detail. The shadows will go dead.

I know they will retain detail, but if the higher contrast one has less exposure the highlights should not be so high on the scale.

Possibly the less exposure just moved the values down to the toe more which made the mid values drop low and the high values still stay on the steep slope, which would not affect the highlightes as much.

it looks like even though your sKannmasheene was left at the same settings
it really isn't the same settings ...

1 stop more dense makes a world of difference
the bottom one when printed down + with a little TLC
will look 10x nicer than the first ...
1 stop less dense makes it ez/pz for the sKannmasheene to blast light
and give more contrast, even though the settings appear the same ...

Yes, you just answered your own question. That's why the rule-of-thumb is "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." There just isn't as much tonal separation in the shadows to begin with, and you lose that separation when the shadows slide down the scale toward the toe of the film. A Zone III value barely holds detail, pushing it down into Zone II gives you gray mush if you try to print it lighter.

Peter Gomena

The thing is, I dont want seperation in my darks. I just want them
To go black. Thats why I like the higher contrast one. I dont like mid tones. Also. I like dark lows and high highs and not much inbetween.

As jnanian said (in his own inimitatable way), the problem is with the interface between your negatives and your scanner software.

Even when you set it for no adjustments, it is like the auto-exposure function in a camera, it is still trying to adjust things for you.

Some software (Vuescan?) does provide a true "no adjustments" option, but it is hard to find it.

cjbecker said:

The thing is, I dont want seperation in my darks. I just want them
To go black. Thats why I like the higher contrast one. I dont like mid tones. Also. I like dark lows and high highs and not much inbetween.

Click to expand...

In which case, underexpose and overdevelop. You'll get soot and whitewash to your heart's content.

By scanner you can make the first as the second one or the second as the first one, i mean by adjustments, i most of the time don't scan flat direct without some adjustments.

you can really not adjust your sKannmasheene of you go into the leevalls
and move the sliders all the way to the right + left, and then the contraster to 1.0
so the line is straight across on the diagonal. THAT will unadjust your leevalls,
otherwise your sKannmasheene still adjusts them in one way or another ...

do you use a variety of films and papers and developers ?
it might be a fruitful exercise to use one film and developer and paper
and "fine tune" your shooting to match the prints you like .. i wouldn't trust the sKannmasheene unless
you use it to convert your film to 0s + 1's
and use a less arcane system to do your printing for you ... and you can fine tune your film exposure and developing
for that too, if you want ... exposing, and developing will be different than for paper printing, just as
processed film used in a condenser and cold light / diffusion head will be different ...

they used to say 30% more processing for cold light but that was a starting point ( just like developing times, box speeds + everything else ) there is no right or wrong, just what works for you ...

... personally i like to over expose most everything i shoot by a few stops ( sometimes 4 or 5 )
and then develop the film so it is almost too dense to see an image ... i have a few ways to get an image out of that, and
i know my film is dovetailed to the way i like to do that ...

All my film and developing is adjusted for what i do now. Tri-x hc110b is what i have done lots of testing with and jav come up with my own iso and developing. This was just something that i have been wondering for a few years.

My big question is...

Do the negatives "look" that different? Is the contrastier shot really a lot "denser" and the flatter shot "thinner"? Or as jnanian said... did the Skanmeecheenee do something you didn't order it to do?

The one wirh more contrast is thinner. But it ended up being the scanner. Time to shut this thread down. Its funny because i had the line going straight.

You folks all missed this one. LOOK AT THE PHOTOS! The sun was out on the trees beyond, and in the other a cloud must have been over the sun.
Don't need to be "Columbo" to get this by just looking at the obvious instead of some mystical thing.
Cheers.

cjbecker said:

But technically why did it have much higher contrast? thats the question.

Click to expand...

Look... the sun is out in one and not in the other!!!