How much does exposure really matter with stand developing?

The "innovative" part of the concept is that the strap is in a loop, rather than a "C" and the connector slides freely up and down the strap, with the camera being free to twist and rotate at the bottom of the loop.

It is that freedom to twist and rotate thst concerns me, along with the fact that the BlackRapid connector threads into the tripod hole.

I agree on both points. I don't think I'd trust it not to work free of the tripod socket, and I wonder what that kind of continuous stress would do to the socket. Unscrewing aside, I don't think I'd like the camera rotating around like that either.

They way I do it, I feel I have some control, as my 35mm is flat against my side or hip. Even with the lens sticking out, at least I know where it is pointing and can compensate accordingly.

I wasn't sure about the slider - I thought it would just pull the strap up. Watching some youtube videos, though, it seems there is enough friction against the body for the connector to slide.

jonbrisbincreative said:

Great information! I've learned quite a lot about this process in just a few pointers.

So maybe "expose for most of the shadows" would be a good compromise to maintain information in the higher zones. Maybe a stop off of spot meter from a shadow area?

Click to expand...

You are right about having to hold highlights in digital. You also have to hold highlights in color slide film and instant photography materials, so certain analog processes works like digital in this "rule of thumb" department.

As for the saying "expose for the shadows" for black and white negative film... The "shadows" are the most important dark things...

But suppose something in the shadow is interesting to you... Then as you guessed... maybe you spot meter on the important shadow and knock a stop off.

I'd knock 2 stops off that reading but you get the idea - you meter the shadow and then stop down to make the shadow dark.

If there's really nothing in the dark part of the scene that you care about, by all means pick something that you are interested in and stop down to make it darker... open up to make it lighter. The famous example is people. To make light-skinned people look right... you open up a stop from a meter reading.

MattKing said:

The shape, size and distribution of mass with an RB67 is really different than a DSLR with a big lens.

And I have a couple of friends who have had problems with BlackRapid connectors and expensive DSLRs that ended up on the ground due to the connector unscrewing itself from the camera.

EDIT I really depend on my old-fashioned, shortened neck strap when I use my RB67 hand held.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes. I would not want to carry a RB/Z 67 on a Black Rapid. It's the wrong shape, size and weight for that.

A short, padded neckstrap is the best option as it will let you support the camera on your chest both when walking and shooting.

(My Black Rapid is prone to creeping when carrying heavy setups, too.)

jonbrisbincreative said:

a) too busy at the time to make any changes to the camera; it's hard enough to do sports with manual focus lenses without having to add in the complexity of changing exposure values (which wasn't useful anyway because gyms don't change in lighting).

Click to expand...

My nightmare condition is walking downtown with the family and wanting to grab snapshots. They're either on the dark side of the street or the light side. But never at the time I want them to be.

Here is where you would set the camera for the dark side of the street... and just leave it. Let the bright side of the street create overexposed negatives. Look at that chart again... exposure goes up to 13 stops and the highlights still haven't hit the dashed "good place to have your highlights" line...

That's all pure latitude. (When developed that way)... A normal developer would hit the dashed line and you might have to be more careful with exposure...

But when you develop flat like that, you can get away with more overexposure.

jonbrisbincreative said:

There seems to be a lot of references to printing from these negatives. I can't say never, but it's extremely unlikely any of these negatives will ever see an enlarger.

Click to expand...

The reason that printing is referred to is that that is what gives meaning to adjusting development to bend the curve or make it flatter or steeper. Without the reference to the paper's characteristics push, pull, plus, minus, stand, constant agitation, whatever means nothing.

Since you are doing the back end digitally it seems truly counter productive to work away from a nice straight line on the curve.

This old Flickr thread also brings up a salient point I hadn't thought of: even if you get exposure metered correctly, there's no guarantee that your RB and lens will give you the precise shutter speed and aperture you tell it to.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/mamiyarb/discuss/72157626727331506/

Another argument in favor of obsessing over the parts that are really, firmly within your control (primarily subject and composition).

There is an iPhone app that measures shutter speed by sound. That will tell you if your shutter is accurate (and if not, how much it's off in 1/3 steps).

It'called ShutterSpeed and costs a nominal amount.

jonbrisbincreative said:

This old Flickr thread also brings up a salient point I hadn't thought of: even if you get exposure metered correctly, there's no guarantee that your RB and lens will give you the precise shutter speed and aperture you tell it to.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/mamiyarb/discuss/72157626727331506/

Another argument in favor of obsessing over the parts that are really, firmly within your control (primarily subject and composition).

Click to expand...

I think this argument is a red herring.

Sure broken equipment may give you goofy results but an RB in reasonable shape is very reliable.

I have 4 lenses and 2 bodies of various vintages (non-C to K/L) and they all produce negatives that would be hard to distinguish exposure wise from one shot with my F5.