HP5 at 3200 in Rodinal : doable ?

[MattKing]

I don't understand why film photography is taught in a manner where maintaining shadows is the only correct way to do it.

With negative films, shadow detail can be the great limiter. If it isn't there in the first place, there is nothing you can do to retrieve it.
In comparison, if detail is hard to see in the highlights, there are things you can do to retrieve them.
I totally agree with your approach to shadow details when it comes time to print - hide them, emphasize them, let them appear in the way the appear - it is all to your taste.

 

[Helge]

Learn to preflash.
That will lift shadows somewhat in push processing/under exposure.

 

[foc]

I never heard the expression "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" until I joined Apug/Photrio.
When I trained as a photographer (back in the 1980s) I was taught to exposed for the main subject in the photo. Remember this was based on commercial, wedding and portrait work. If the lighting ratio was more than 4:1, then unless it was Film Noir style, the simple answer was to throw some light into the shadows, by a reflector or fill-in flash. The idea was that it was done in-camera. Development, C41, E6 or B&W was meant to be by the book.

Even in outside work or large interiors, it was the same. BUT the trick was only the shadows nearest the camera were important.
It was mentioned above, that if the shadow is uninteresting then don't bother with it, in fact, it might be better to make it darker so you can't see what is lurking in the shade.

 

[Yaeli]

@MattKing : you summed it all up perfectly :

it is all to your taste.

There are enough film stocks, developers, and techniques for all to achieve the look they prefer. The only thing is (and I preach to myself also when saying that) to acknowledge that it's only preference, and to not try and impose personal preferences on others by saying that they're the "be all end all", or the "only proper way to do things".

Edit :
P.S : personal notes for the next "music" shooting : 1) Try and avoid 1/60th of a second, it's too slow and you'll get motion blur 90% of the time (unless it's intentional). 2) Try and avoid shooting people backlit by a halogen lamp with no front lighting, the light is usually not flattering on their face, and you cannot really compensate as you would for a backlit scene, because you're already at 1/125th at f/2 and 3200 ISO. 3) Try and avoid "floating heads", instruments cut in weird places (guitars with no necks for instance), and close-ups of instruments with only an "Addams Family severed hand" floating above...

 

[MattKing]

With respect to your personal notes, they certainly make sense, although I am kind of fond of those severed hands photos - might make for a good musicians' photography project!
And of course, unless you are aiming for silhouettes, backlighting won't cut it. You need to pay attention only to the light that is actually illuminating the part of your subject that you care about.

 

[Yaeli]

@MattKing : Below is the example of the severed hand
As for backlighting, I probably did not explain it properly (and spoke about exposure compensation when it was not appropriate) : it's not that the face of the musician is underexposed, since I had used an incident light reading for her face. It's just that, because she has no light falling directly on her face, the shadows (under the eyes or the chin) are really unflattering. Compensating wouldn't have helped in that case, I realized that after you answered.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing : Below is the example of the severed hand .

I like that - think of a bunch of them, from a bunch of different musicians. It could make for a great gallery show!
And if you wrote it up in Gallery Speak, there might be awards!

 

[Yaeli]

I like that - think of a bunch of them, from a bunch of different musicians. It could make for a great gallery show!
And if you wrote it up in Gallery Speak, there might be awards!

Thanks ! I'll keep that in mind
This one is not technically as "Addams Family style" as the other, but would fit in the gallery, I think... I have another project in mind for now though, something that I think I need to do once and for all. But you'll probably see a post about it in a few weeks

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think I have just read in this thread which film setting was used for the movie, Young Frankenstein. Just take a 400 film with a relatively long toe to begin with, chop two zones off even that by using gross underexposure, and you'll have ample creepy dark spaces for a monster to emerge from. "Smoke good ....Fire good .... good for burning underexposed negatives."

One can get away with significant areas of blank black in a small print, even a contact print from a large format negative, in a manner that gets downright annoying if viewed on bigger scale. And let's say you do know how to handle pure black in a compositional graphic sense like Brett Weston did - in that case, I'd rather underexpose and overdevelop a film with a longer straight line like TMY400, where one simply drops off a cliff at a certain point into sheer darkness, than employ one with a long toe like HP5, where one transitionally drifts from murkiness into mud, and eventually in black. But to each his own, I guess. Just follow the instructions on that Frankendeveloper bottle Igor is carrying around, attach the electrical cables, and then you've got it.

 

[Yaeli]

@DREW WILEY : Don't psychoanalyse me, but it's the kind of atmosphere and look I like in photography... Brassaï at night in Paris, film noir, "ghosts" of people (Saul Leiter is a master at that), dark and moody / rainy / stormy pictures, etc...

Edit : as to the technical points you mentioned, I'm not sure I completely understand, because I lack the knowledge to get it. Do you mean that you prefer complete blacks to almost blacks, and that some films will allow that while HP5 won't ? Or maybe that HP5 pushed in Rodinal won't ? Can you tell me, from the images I posted, what areas you would consider murky or muddy, so that I can understand better ? Because personally, nothing appears muddy or murky to my eyes (except in the out of focus picture, but I thought this was more due to focusing than to the film stock per se).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just depends on what look you're after. I do all kinds of things. But understanding how various films behave in this respect is important for getting it to cooperate with your own esthetic objectives. Bill Brandt would be another well-known photographer to look at in terms of gloomier moods. The bigger problem is to not go so overboard in the negative itself that you have little fine-tuning wiggle room when it comes to printing it. You'd can't print gradation if it's not even there is the thinner parts of the neg to begin with; but it is fairly easy to fully darken something during printing. In other words, don't paint yourself into a corner in this respect. It's pretty difficult to adjudicate fine-tuning issues from web posted images via scans; the web is a relatively crude visual medium. Just do what you like. If you like the look, why not? But getting that special look in a predictable manner might require quite a bit of experience both shooting and printing. Then after awhile, you'll be in a position to better understand some of the axioms behind these kinds of discussion, like the relation of different kinds of characteristic film curves in relation to this. In the meantime, don't let it interrupt your fun!

 

[Yaeli]

@DREW WILEY : got it And I agree, I think it's better, from a technical standpoint, to have something to work with on the negative (in the shadows I mean), even if you choose later to darken it completely. I also agree on the difference between scanning and printing. And I finally agree with my need for experience and practice. Wow, that's a lot of agreement I think your last words are also very important : I shoot for my pleasure and for friends, and I'm only just starting to develop film at home. I'm probably still at the stage where it's all fun and games, where I experiment, try things out, see the outcome. After a while, I will certainly start looking for consistency, predictability, and higher quality. But fun will (I hope) still be an important part of the process. I think it's David Burnett who, when asked why he still shoots on film, and chooses to use a Holga and a view camera on assignement, said something like : "because it keeps me interested. It breaks the routine, keeps things exciting". Thanks for your comment !

 

[DREW WILEY]

We learn by doing and experimenting. Sometimes I deliberately test the boundaries with the expectation of a bellyflop. Yep, often that is exactly what I get - a bellyflop. But at other times, it's how I've discovered exciting new techniques, or come up with a very satisfying print that would have never transpired unless I took the risk. I might print the same neg several different ways during the same darkroom session, or tone them differently afterwards. Lots of possibilities.