I hope we can give him something positive to try that may help before he reaches for the bitter almond pills I fear the way this thread is going he may be giving up on film as a bad idea
Would it make sense to wait until he has responded before he feels sucked into the vortex of doom
pentaxuser
Alan - I have no means of telling over the web what a specific neg or print looks like in any nuanced sense, or even what the real lighting was like. All I can comment is that if you want silhouettes, expose and develop for that effect. If you want to have perceptible shadows gradation, expose and develop for that instead. Or if you don't really know which you want, go with the latter strategy for sake of a versatile negative. One can always print bolder or more contrasty; but you can't add detail or texture that isn't captured on the negative to begin with. Yes, this also requires sensitivity to the quality of light on hand, and a distinct amount of experience in shooting and printing too. But I find this cat and mouse game with high contras lighting a lot of fun, and get some very nice prints too.
Sheet film is the most versatile because you can easily segregate different sheets for sake of separate levels of development. With roll film, one either needs an extra back or two (if your camera even used detachable backs), or else you develop for the preponderance of images on that particular roll. Still, with practice and the right film, long contrast scale scenes are no problem for me with either kind of equipment. But a real handheld spotmeter does help, For those who say, "simply bracket", OK; but light can shift quickly, and if one has looked at the price of 8x10 sheet film these days, or the weight of a lot of extra holders, they might think twice. If one has a machine-gunner mentality, a big view camera can be an excellent cure.
Wow pentaxuser; why the lamenting? Did anyone here instantly learn to drive a car or even ride a bicycle? Does that fact imply the bitter end to either mode of transportation? Why not just roll over and die now, and get it over with, or else rely on cardboard disposable cameras and one hour labs, and let them hear the complaints instead. Nobody is going to fall off the edge of the earth or get swallowed by sea monsters by attempting something new and actually relatively basic with a camera and darkroom. And no, light meters will not electrocute you.
I was curious to see how much data is in the shadows and whether with these shots or more exposed shots you could bring it out better.
Originals by OP in post #28.
Correct. I'm not necessarily trying to compress the entire dynamic range as long as the blown out areas are more pleasing.I almost agree. In the sample pictures the OP posted, the trees are more than just silhouettes, there's some tone and I like them the way they are. But if the OP wants more midtones, the question to the OP becomes: Do you really need any detail in what's essentially the sky plus probably some sunlit leaves? I don't think so. Then the part of the scene you want isn't so terribly high in contrast. Just expose more and accept some parts will be blown out. So the issue is just the transition to blown out areas looking ugly. IMHO, film does help here a little, just because a bit of grain helps mask that ugly transition.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to look into some of the books mentioned in here.There's much you can accomplish with black and white film too, but mastering the techniques is no trivial undertaking. Phil Davis's Beyond The Zone System is an excellent if rather technical guide to really understanding how film behaves, and how it can be manipulated.
Only theoretically. I've never developed film myself but I did shoot for a bit back in the 90s. I still have the very first roll of film I ever shot that I pulled out of my cabinet this morning and it was surprisingly almost entirely correctly exposed (easy scenes though)OP it might be helpful if you were to tell us how much of the various b&w film techniques that have been mentioned makes sense to you and what you know of things like pre-flashing, zone system etc
I've sold some landscapes but none in forests which is something new I'm trying out. I'm able to get pretty good images in forests under ideal conditions but since ideal conditions are pretty hard to come by in some areas (one of the images I got took almost 2 years of repeated visits) I'm trying to increase my output by experimenting with more techniques (film being one of them).Do you in fact sell prints of forest landscapes as has been assumed?
Yes the shadows do have detail. I've actually shot that scene dozens of times in various lighting conditions. I guess my problem is I'm unable to get a result that I like ... the tones just look worse and worse to my eyes the more I manipulate it. I can see couple responses that talk about the issues of trying to compress dynamic range which makes sense to me now.I was curious to see how much data is in the shadows and whether with these shots or more exposed shots you could bring it out better.
Originals by OP in post #28.
I guess my problem is I'm unable to get a result that I like
Alan, those are web examples, not real negs. Hard to tell.
Wow. If you are able to pull out that much detail from low quality jpgs....
Seeing how much I was able to pull out myself tells me I was wrong in my other posts that the lighting was not sufficient for what he wanted to do. The details seem to be there in the shadows. It just needs a tender touch to bring out properly.
Aside from the fact that friends do not let friends do stand development, the OP is looking only a using film to see if it can give him the results he would like. He is not nor has he requested training as a expert film chemist with a full darkroom. One step at a time and see if you can be weaned away from stand development since we do have therapy for stand development recovery.
So many great responses here. I don't fully understand all the techniques discussed here since I've never done any development myself but I'm noting down all the ideas to experiment with down the road. Thanks all!
Correct. I'm not necessarily trying to compress the entire dynamic range as long as the blown out areas are more pleasing.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to look into some of the books mentioned in here.
Only theoretically. I've never developed film myself but I did shoot for a bit back in the 90s. I still have the very first roll of film I ever shot that I pulled out of my cabinet this morning and it was surprisingly almost entirely correctly exposed (easy scenes though)
I've sold some landscapes but none in forests which is something new I'm trying out. I'm able to get pretty good images in forests under ideal conditions but since ideal conditions are pretty hard to come by in some areas (one of the images I got took almost 2 years of repeated visits) I'm trying to increase my output by experimenting with more techniques (film being one of them).
Yes the shadows do have detail. I've actually shot that scene dozens of times in various lighting conditions. I guess my problem is I'm unable to get a result that I like ... the tones just look worse and worse to my eyes the more I manipulate it. I can see couple responses that talk about the issues of trying to compress dynamic range which makes sense to me now.
Yes this seems to be good summary and conclusion, namely, that the details are there. So what was it you did Alan that improved the detail that you can pass on the OP? It would seem from his replies that he has a lab develop the film so has no control over that and I presume he prints his own pics so is there a technique in the dreaded PS that gets him the detail that he needs to know about?
Now that we know a lab develops his film then at least we know that homing in on developers, development techniques will be redundant
I suppose that if exposure can be improved to produce better negatives then this may make prints easier via hybrid but equally if scanning as you have demonstrated, can improve the prints then its a hybrid issue only
The only issue remaining for the OP is whether better technique with a film camera will lead to an improved print compared to his digital method.
We are back to the "Will film improve his pics beyond that which his digital camera will produce and if so by how much and will the cost of using film and a film camera in terms of cost, time and effort outweigh the improvement?
Only the OP can decide on this
Is this a reasonable summary of your situation, OP?
pentaxuser
Must be the heat wave we are going through....
Basically, I increased the brightness with the Shadow slider. Just don't overdo it. Then a few other minor adjustments to match my taste. Nothing heroic.Yes this seems to be good summary and conclusion, namely, that the details are there. So what was it you did Alan that improved the detail that you can pass on the OP? It would seem from his replies that he has a lab develop the film so has no control over that and I presume he prints his own pics so is there a technique in the dreaded PS that gets him the detail that he needs to know about?
Now that we know a lab develops his film then at least we know that homing in on developers, development techniques will be redundant
I suppose that if exposure can be improved to produce better negatives then this may make prints easier via hybrid but equally if scanning as you have demonstrated, can improve the prints then its a hybrid issue only
The only issue remaining for the OP is whether better technique with a film camera will lead to an improved print compared to his digital method.
We are back to the "Will film improve his pics beyond that which his digital camera will produce and if so by how much and will the cost of using film and a film camera in terms of cost, time and effort outweigh the improvement?
Only the OP can decide on this
Is this a reasonable summary of your situation, OP?
pentaxuser
.........
It is possible using Zone system controls to generate a picture that has simultaneously tone in the sunlit highlights and tone in the deep shadows but the mid-tone contrast will be so muted that the picture will be very dull and probably not worth looking at.
.........
I'm not a dark room guy. But I've heard, "Expose for the shadows. Develop for the highlights." Wouldn't that work?
I'm not a dark room guy. But I've heard, "Expose for the shadows. Develop for the highlights." Wouldn't that work?
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?