I need an opinion on what is wrong with this negative please

Dwayne Martin · Jan 16, 2015

Hi everyone, does anyone have an opinion of what may have gone wrong with this negative aside from the fact that the subject has her eyes closed.
The shadows were placed on zone 3 and the highlights (skin) were placed on zone 6.
The film is tri-x 320 developed with D-76 stock, for my normal time in a jobo rotary, 7 min on the slow speed.
The D-76 was mixed just before I used it so I had to cool it down to 68 pretty fast in ice water.
Looks to me like the shadows need more development and the highlights less.
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated as I have 9 more frames that I want to develop correctly.
Thanks
SB

pthornto · Jan 16, 2015

Was just reading in Barnbaum's book (Art of Photography) a couple of days ago. He advocates putting shadows a bit lighter, in zone 4, with the rationale that this puts darker values still on the linear portion of the exposure/density curve, and will give you better separation between zones 2, 3, 4. He says that if you put shadows in zone 3 the zones below that can actually end up in the toe of the curve and end up compressed, unseparated, and looking somewhat "muddy". Not sure if that is what is happening here, but the issue may be more of of exposure than development.

Just some thoughts.

Paul

Snowball Earth said:
Hi everyone, does anyone have an opinion of what may have gone wrong with this negative aside from the fact that the subject has her eyes closed.
The shadows were placed on zone 3 and the highlights (skin) were placed on zone 6.
The film is tri-x 320 developed with D-76 stock, for my normal time in a jobo rotary, 7 min on the slow speed.
The D-76 was mixed just before I used it so I had to cool it down to 68 pretty fast in ice water.
Looks to me like the shadows need more development and the highlights less.
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated as I have 9 more frames that I want to develop correctly.
Thanks
SB

David Lyga · Jan 16, 2015

I think that this is an example of where underexposure enhances the artistry. I like it (not the closed eyes, though.) Did you ever think that offering more in the way of shadow detail might compromise the image's strength? Someimes, less is more. - David Lyga

Kevin Kehler · Jan 16, 2015

I am going to go with David here - if your emphasis is on the person, then you have a strong vignetting which pushes the eye towards the subject (the top left excluded). If you wanted to show more of the tree, it looks under-exposed, which additional development could have helped compensate for but at the cost of more grain. I think it is a little underexposed if you are looking for a more "true" representation of the scene but I think it is fine for a more artistic portrait.

Rick A · Jan 16, 2015

I'm with you on that David. I prefer to expose for the main subject, and let the rest just happen.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 16, 2015

I agree with Kevin, Rick, and David above.

To me the person is the focus of interest, and there is enough detail everywhere to make her appear in a pleasing manner, tonality wise. The tree is also important, but is the backdrop for the photograph. A little lost shadow detail is not a problem, as David mentions I agree it actually strengthens the image. Shadow detail is not everything, and strong bold black tones can really strengthen a composition and focus the eye where it matters.

I agree about the closed eyes. That is a bit unfortunate.

David Allen · Jan 16, 2015

Before anyone can really give more help, we would need to know:

Are we looking at a scan or a print?
When you say that you placed the shadows on Zone III where in this image did you take your meter reading?
Have you tested your equipment, film, development (plus print time for maximum black if you do wet printing) to identify you personal EI for Tri-X in D76?

p.s. My personal opinion is that Barnbaum is entirely wrong despite his 'messianic' delivery of his ideas as can be seen on Youtube where he is teaching a class. If you follow what he says, claims and the reasons for them it is quickly apparent that his testing for personal EI is totally flawed. If you do 'real world' tests to determine personal EI with the equipment that you want to use, the meter, the meter method, the film and developer combined with assessing this by starting with a minimum exposure to achieve black in the print then your Zone III placement will be well and truly safely away from the toe.

Bests,

David.
ww.dsallen.de

Laurent · Jan 16, 2015

Concerning the image itself, I agree with David and all others, as it looks more powerful that way.

If I'm right, shadows shoud not require more development, but more exposure, as they should develop in the first seconds/minutes of the development.
Then you should be able to give less development if you want to "flatten" highlights.

baachitraka · Jan 16, 2015

Zone III shadows are not that bright but then we do not know which of those dark area you have chosen to meter for shadows...

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 16, 2015

I think it's very nice. I suppose if it was my image I'd want another half stop exposure in the shadows and slightly less development. If this was your goal then I suggest it's metering errors. Did you use a spot meter? From what specific area did you take the shadow reading? Is there any chance even the tiniest bit of that dark background was included in the meter's view when you metered the skin tones?

pentaxuser · Jan 16, 2015

Looking at the picture it would seem to depend on where you look. The skin tone just above the cleavage looks to be at least zone VII maybe even ZVIII but the hands look much closer to ZVI. Same goes for the shadows but in reverse so to speak.

All of the above assumes an accurate scan of a "best straight print" However it seems that David Allen makes a good point. We need to know where the skin and shadows were metered

From an impact point of view I agree with others here that it achieves the objective of focusing attention on the person whose shadow detail on her dark dress look to be about right.

I'd settle for this as a print if I had printed it

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 16, 2015

What EI did you use? How did you read the shadows?

BrianShaw · Jan 16, 2015

Crop tighter. Get rid of the "nothingness" at top and left sides of the frame. Other than that I see no significant problems.

And make good use of the closed eyes.... call the image "Afraid of the dark" or something even more artsy.

MattKing · Jan 16, 2015

Trees like that are like sponges for light.

They just suck it in and don't let it out.

A compensating developer might help a bit.

frank · Jan 16, 2015

What's wrong? You cut off her feet! There's plenty of room in that composition to include the whole person.

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 16, 2015

It's better to deal with one issue at a time... no need to pile on too many things at once. Resolve one issue first (the one questioned)... then move on to the next. Or just let it go unless we see a recurrence of the same issue. Our egos can sometimes be fragile and we're easily discouraged... not mine though.

Pat Erson · Jan 16, 2015

Not a Zonie so to me your neg looks underexposed.

And I cringed at that part "The D-76 was mixed just before I used it ". I'd suggest you mix it the day before you use it.

ic-racer · Jan 16, 2015

Can you post a picture of the negative on a light table? Or a scan of the negative which includes the film edges and or numbers.

cliveh · Jan 16, 2015

Snowball Earth said:
Hi everyone, does anyone have an opinion of what may have gone wrong with this negativeSB

You managed to make a print with some tone variation, so the negative can't be all that bad. What sort of print were you hoping to achieve?

Dwayne Martin · Jan 16, 2015

Thanks to all who took the time to answer my questions, I've just gotten home from work and will try to be more specific and answer individual questions a little later.
SE

Dwayne Martin · Jan 16, 2015

I also read up on Barbaums theory but I was a bit nervous and I didn't think of it. The shadows on this particular negative do seem a little muddy.
Thanks Paul.

Dwayne Martin · Jan 16, 2015

David Lyga said:
I think that this is an example of where underexposure enhances the artistry. I like it (not the closed eyes, though.) Did you ever think that offering more in the way of shadow detail might compromise the image's strength? Someimes, less is more. - David Lyga

I do agree with you but I'm trying my best to master the fine art of development. Up till now I have never gotten any advice from anyone and have never posted on any forums. This series is really important to me so I thought I would get a little advice before I developed the rest.

Thanks
SB

Dwayne Martin · Jan 16, 2015

David Allen said:
Before anyone can really give more help, we would need to know:

Are we looking at a scan or a print?

When you say that you placed the shadows on Zone III where in this image did you take your meter reading?

Have you tested your equipment, film, development (plus print time for maximum black if you do wet printing) to identify you personal EI for Tri-X in D76?

p.s. My personal opinion is that Barnbaum is entirely wrong despite his 'messianic' delivery of his ideas as can be seen on Youtube where he is teaching a class. If you follow what he says, claims and the reasons for them it is quickly apparent that his testing for personal EI is totally flawed. If you do 'real world' tests to determine personal EI with the equipment that you want to use, the meter, the meter method, the film and developer combined with assessing this by starting with a minimum exposure to achieve black in the print then your Zone III placement will be well and truly safely away from the toe.

Bests,

David.
ww.dsallen.de

The image is from a scan,
Typically when I use my pentax spot I scan around a little to find an average.
Regrettably I have not tested my equipment yet, but I have had predictable results so far.
Thanks,
David
The camera is a speed graphic with aero ektar on it. One issue is very few shutter speeds to chose from.

pthornto · Jan 16, 2015

The ideas from Barnbaum just came to me as I was reading the book a day or so ago. I like the pictures in his books but I agree that he should not necessarily be emulated! I was approaching the image from the idea of what would I change? Probably the better question is rather, what do you think needs to be changed? Very cool tree and a nice setting for a portrait.

Dwayne Martin · Jan 16, 2015

frank said:
What's wrong? You cut off her feet! There's plenty of room in that composition to include the whole person.

Fair criticism for sure. I composed the shot peering through a kalart rangefinder on a speed graphic, and screwed it up a little.

Thanks Frank

I need an opinion on what is wrong with this negative please

Dwayne Martin

Attachments

pthornto

David Lyga

Kevin Kehler

Rick A

Thomas Bertilsson

David Allen

Laurent

baachitraka

Old-N-Feeble

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

BrianShaw

MattKing

Moderator

frank

Old-N-Feeble

Pat Erson

ic-racer

cliveh

Dwayne Martin

Dwayne Martin

Dwayne Martin

Dwayne Martin

pthornto

Dwayne Martin

I need an opinion on what is wrong with this negative please

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency