Interesting! The methods you describe do sound quite similar to what I'm doing digitally. My hope was that film would be easier to work with (even if it has the same issues to deal with). I guess I'll just have to try it to find out
Interesting! The methods you describe do sound quite similar to what I'm doing digitally. My hope was that film would be easier to work with (even if it has the same issues to deal with). I guess I'll just have to try it to find outHi, I'd agree with koraks. I expect that you'll be disappointed with your film results. It's true that the film(s?) mentioned do have the ability to record a very long "brightness" range. But when you try to actually put this range to use you're gonna run into the same issues as you did with your digital back.
+++++
This in essence is what the OP wants to know. isn't it? Currently in trying to help we are telling him what the problems are and possibly without trying to, are persuading him that his is a forlorn hope
Once we can see what it is he wants to achieve, we'll know how and if we can help him
pentaxuser
I was not sure if its ok to post pics. This is one of the examples I gave up on. This is pretty much straight from the camera so its quite dark. What I don't like about this one is that the transitions from light to dark are too extreme to recover in post (see crop)
My hope was that film would be easier to work with (even if it has the same issues to deal with).
Just the opposite. Every B&W film will look different at different EIs, and in different light and in different developers. So before one even begins, the film shooter is faced w/ a lot of decisions that will alter the IQ. Even the way it's agitated will influence it's appearance. For your purposes, I'd say get some Tri-X and develop it in D76 stock solution. That's pretty foolproof and offers smooth tonality.
Hi. I do a lot of high-contrast black and white photography, not only in the extremes of desert and mountain high altitude, but here in the redwoods where lighting ratios between brilliantly lit twigs and deep shade detail can be up to a 12 stop range once the fog is gone and direct sun is out. I shoot various formats, all the way from 6x7 to 8x10, and have learned how to get rich tonality out of the total range. By far the best film available at the present time for handling that long scale is TMax. I prefer TMax100 in roll films cameras due to its high detail capacity and finer grain, but TMax 400 in bigger sheet film sizes. But you can use either in any format. Learning how to correctly meter for these and properly develop for optimum performance takes some practice. And if you intend to make darkroom prints with the result, that's what you should try to do hand in hand right from the start. Sometimes people who merely scan and look at a screen get a mistaken impression. Besides, this is a so-called "analog" forum, whatever that means. It simply call it classic photography. But it's next to impossible to represent over the web a long scale print from a high contrast scene.
Other potential choices : FP4 is a more forgiving beginner film, but can't resolve deep shadows to the same degree TMax can. Delta 100 likewise, though it more resembles TMax if you rate it around 50. Tri-X? - well, if you enjoy the look of buckshot-sized grain. I call it Triassic-X for a reason. All kinds of possibilities, but most of them struggle in seriously high contrast. Better films in that respect once existed in the past, but were themselves quite grainy by today's standards. Just take my word for it and pick one of the TMax films.
A lot goes into doing this well. You can't just push some buttons and get the job done. High contrast requires accurate metering skill, preferably with a real spot meter. Or go ahead and bracket for initial learning purposes. If it's TMax, use actual box speed, either 100 or 400. Just try to get on to first base first learning appropriate exposure. Fine tuning the development method can come later, along with being hauled into the dark forest at night by torchlight to some secret spot to get initiated in the Zone System fraternity by a bunch of bearded old men with bent noses, none of whom will completely agree with one another. Run for your life if you can!
I use subtle fill flash in my landscape scenes like what you have posted. I try not to make it obvious, but other times, clearly the flash is evident.
I'll see if I can find some examples.
Alan - The question seems framed around b&w film. A much different ballgame than color film. There are numerous ways to strategize a high contrast exposure; but with any of them it's important to meter both the deepest shadow gradation values you hope to retain perceptible texture in, as well as the highlights at the other end. Many people resort to Zone theory and "minus" develop the film, or use some analogous form of compensation development to squeeze the overall sandwich together. But that comes with the penalty of diminished textural differentiation in the midtones. In other words, they stomp on the sandwich until it's thin enough to eat.
Combined with that strategy, they often overexpose the shadows to get the shadow values up off the toe and onto the straight line of the characteristic curve; for instance, using Zone III shadow placement with Tri-X. But that just exacerbates the overblown highlight issue in high contrast scenes. That worked better back when long scale contact printing papers like Azo were in frequent use, but now seems counterproductive for regular silver gelatin printing.
What I prefer to do is choose a film with a long straight line to begin with, which is capable of good shadow gradation way down into Zone I; and at the present time, Tmax films are the answer to that, but only if the metering and development are correct. Just a matter of fine-tuning one's skills. Then there are all kinds of potentially helpful tweaks like staining pyro development, use of VC papers, supplemental contrast masking, etc. I really enjoy all of that, plus the challenge itself of high contrast scenes. But I want to preserve all the native depth and sparkle. No polarizers or drastic minus development for me.
Any let me just emphasize once again that this is the kind of thing I do all the time. It's entirely feasible. Tomorrow I'll be out in a foggy seaside low-contrast setting. But just a short distance away driving to or from, I might well encounter a direct sun deep forest situation in the redwoods with extreme contrast. I can handle either using TMax. The only better films were the true 200's like past Super-XX and Bergger 200. The current pseudo-200 of Foma 200 does itself have an exceptionally long straight line, but is otherwise a massive headache in deep shade, with abominable long exposure characteristics and disappointing quality control. So I didn't include that under forest scenes per se; been there, done that, learned my lesson. A slow fine-grained film which did work was Efke 25, but it's gone too.
This one is pretty obvious fill flash
Soon the OP will be running back to his digital Hasselblad in tears.
Drew mentioned preflashing color film. This is something you could also do with your b&w film. It might be helpful in your example shot. Essentially you put a very weak exposure across the entire film (you can do this either before or after the main exposure). For example, after the main exposure give a 2nd exposure perhaps 3 or 4 f-stops down from the metered exposure (it could be an out-of-focus reflector, or even a clear sky). The desired effect is to very slightly lift the darkest shadows, such that a little detail comes into them. Anything above the shadows is essentially unaffected, depending on how hard you "flash" the film. It is essentially equivalent to a lens with poor flare control, except that you can control how much.That's encouraging to hear. I'm always open to trying new techniques so I appreciate all the ideas.
Fill in flash, for landscapes, is very hard to do successfully and make it look natural. After all, you are competing with nature and the sun and they nearly always win.
Personally, if I find the scene too contrasty or the light is not to my liking, I will just leave it and maybe come back another day.
Know your own limitations and the equipment and materials limitations.
With a subject like this, you really need to understand fill in flash and the inverse square law.
View attachment 310757
Alan - The question seems framed around b&w film. A much different ballgame than color film. There are numerous ways to strategize a high contrast exposure; but with any of them it's important to meter both the deepest shadow gradation values you hope to retain perceptible texture in, as well as the highlights at the other end. Many people resort to Zone theory and "minus" develop the film, or use some analogous form of compensation development to squeeze the overall sandwich together. But that comes with the penalty of diminished textural differentiation in the midtones. In other words, they stomp on the sandwich until it's thin enough to eat.
Combined with that strategy, they often overexpose the shadows to get the shadow values up off the toe and onto the straight line of the characteristic curve; for instance, using Zone III shadow placement with Tri-X. But that just exacerbates the overblown highlight issue in high contrast scenes. That worked better back when long scale contact printing papers like Azo were in frequent use, but now seems counterproductive for regular silver gelatin printing.
What I prefer to do is choose a film with a long straight line to begin with, which is capable of good shadow gradation way down into Zone I; and at the present time, Tmax films are the answer to that, but only if the metering and development are correct. Just a matter of fine-tuning one's skills. Then there are all kinds of potentially helpful tweaks like staining pyro development, use of VC papers, supplemental contrast masking, etc. I really enjoy all of that, plus the challenge itself of high contrast scenes. But I want to preserve all the native depth and sparkle. No polarizers or drastic minus development for me.
Any let me just emphasize once again that this is the kind of thing I do all the time. It's entirely feasible. Tomorrow I'll be out in a foggy seaside low-contrast setting. But just a short distance away driving to or from, I might well encounter a direct sun deep forest situation in the redwoods with extreme contrast. I can handle either using TMax. The only better films were the true 200's like past Super-XX and Bergger 200. The current pseudo-200 of Foma 200 does itself have an exceptionally long straight line, but is otherwise a massive headache in deep shade, with abominable long exposure characteristics and disappointing quality control. So I didn't include that under forest scenes per se; been there, done that, learned my lesson. A slow fine-grained film which did work was Efke 25, but it's gone too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?