Looking to improve my exposure method and get better negatives...

[avizzini]

I shoot mostly Delta 400 (when I don't want to bring along a tripod) and Delta 100. I use it at box speed and develop at Ilford recommended times using DDX. I invert the tank 4 times every minute for 10 seconds.

I feel like my negativs lack contrast at times. They are usually good to scan but their flatness feels a bit more problematic sometimes when making darkroom prints. I sometimes have to add a good bit of contrast to get what I want and at that point the print loses tones and gets harsher grain. Nothing crazy bad but, there's room for improvement. I usualy do split grade printing, if this makes a difference.

At the moment I’m using an iPhone metering app that functions as a reflective light meter getting an average of the entire scene. I try to meter the scene taking into account what it’s pointed at so that it’s looking at shadows, mid tones, and highlights so that it’s a good average… Should I avoid the sky altogether when metering this way?

Most of the time I’m use a light red filter (#25). I used to add 2 stops of exposure for this but, I decided to go with 3 when using the red filter. It seems to have helped a bit. When I’m in bright areas or scenes with a lot of snow, I’ll add 1-2 stops on top of what the meter is giving me.

What is a good straightforward way to meter landscapes when working with roll film (120). As I understand it, methods such as the Zone System are not as practical with roll film as you can’t develop each negative uniquely and especially for landscape where each scene being photographed can vary a lot.

Let me know if either of these scenarios would give me better results:

Scenario 1

With the adage « Meter for the shadows develop for the highlights… » can this be translated when shooting roll film where I can’t differentiate development for each image?

Say I’m using Delta 400 @ F16 and I spot meter important shadows and I get a shutter speed of 1/30s. Since this would give me « grayish » shadows, I would actually shoot it at F16 for 1/250s or 1/500s taking them down 2 - 3 stops. At this point if I develop normally would I get better negatives more often than if I just took an overall reflective average? Would this give me bad highlights since I can’t really do much in development for my highlights due to changing lighting conditions?

Scenario 2

I also see that some recommend not shooting the film at box speed but rather slower. In the case of Delta 400 would I treat it as ISO 320 or even 200? What about Delta 100, treat it like 80 or 50?

Assuming I rate Delta 400 at 320 would I still develop it normally as if I were shooting it at 400 (8 mins with DDX) or would I pull it?

...

I’m not looking for perfection just improvements on what I’m currently doing. I don’t want to get too lost in the technical details and theory. Just some straightforward suggestions that might help.

 

[trendland]

I shoot mostly Delta 400 (when I don't want to bring along a tripod) and Delta 100. I use it at box speed and develop at Ilford recommended times using DDX. I invert the tank 4 times every minute for 10 seconds.

I feel like my negativs lack contrast at times. They are usually good to scan but their flatness feels a bit more problematic sometimes when making darkroom prints. I sometimes have to add a good bit of contrast to get what I want and at that point the print loses tones and gets harsher grain. Nothing crazy bad but, there's room for improvement. I usualy do split grade printing, if this makes a difference.

At the moment I’m using an iPhone metering app that functions as a reflective light meter getting an average of the entire scene. I try to meter the scene taking into account what it’s pointed at so that it’s looking at shadows, mid tones, and highlights so that it’s a good average… Should I avoid the sky altogether when metering this way?

Most of the time I’m use a light red filter (#25). I used to add 2 stops of exposure for this but, I decided to go with 3 when using the red filter. It seems to have helped a bit. When I’m in bright areas or scenes with a lot of snow, I’ll add 1-2 stops on top of what the meter is giving me.

What is a good straightforward way to meter landscapes when working with roll film (120). As I understand it, methods such as the Zone System are not as practical with roll film as you can’t develop each negative uniquely and especially for landscape where each scene being photographed can vary a lot.

Let me know if either of these scenarios would give me better results:

Scenario 1

With the adage « Meter for the shadows develop for the highlights… » can this be translated when shooting roll film where I can’t differentiate development for each image?

Say I’m using Delta 400 @ F16 and I spot meter important shadows and I get a shutter speed of 1/30s. Since this would give me « grayish » shadows, I would actually shoot it at F16 for 1/250s or 1/500s taking them down 2 - 3 stops. At this point if I develop normally would I get better negatives more often than if I just took an overall reflective average? Would this give me bad highlights since I can’t really do much in development for my highlights due to changing lighting conditions?

Scenario 2

I also see that some recommend not shooting the film at box speed but rather slower. In the case of Delta 400 would I treat it as ISO 320 or even 200? What about Delta 100, treat it like 80 or 50?

Assuming I rate Delta 400 at 320 would I still develop it normally as if I were shooting it at 400 (8 mins with DDX) or would I pull it?

...

I’m not looking for perfection just improvements on what I’m currently doing. I don’t want to get too lost in the technical details and theory. Just some straightforward suggestions that might help.

From my impression you are with less experience for photography - right!
So my advice is the following :
1) forget your IPhone for metering Film exposure!
2) forget metering in general with bw film!
3) try to find out the secrets of messurement light and metering exposore beginning next year!

So use your camera automatic ! But listen what camera is using aperature and speed!
For landscape with normal background and 1/3 framed normal sky the camera has enough
precision to meter correct with bw film!
If your films are from low contrast you may use different E.I ( for example E.I. ISO 200 with your
ISO 400 box speed film)!
That would end in push development (1E.V. = 1 stop)!
Pushing films do higher contrast normaly!
But before that you may correct workflow from development!

OK what to do with messurements of your camera into direction of sunlight?
(You should avoid it btw) - you have to correct exposure (the electronic indicates much light and change aperature to less speed much too much)
The same is with sky at 2/3 framing and a dark foreground! So I would avoid the next time to shot
in this way and therefore you may first calibrate contrast!
Later you have to note correction you made with highlighted skys aso. and try to win experience!

In that way : camera indicates 5.6 500sec. but you know shot is in direction of sun!
You correct your overdriven camera values in direction of +1 stop! And have a look if it was enough or it could be more or it was too much! A series of 3exposures can help much for the first time!
And next year if you are from more experience you will begin to messure with lightmeter or spotmeter! (you will need to know the basics from good experience first)

with regards

 

[trendland]

Aha - yes I see : Shooting film need to decide to film speed buy using each film!
ISO 400 is ISO 40O (NO WAY TO CHANGE SPEED DURING SHOOTING)
But you may correct exposure of single frames in the form : give it a bit more light/less light!

You may change ISO setting for some frames then! But don't forget to calibrate (setting back)
after the shot! The better way is to change speed and / or aperature!

You may decide on ISO 100 film AND to different ISO setting on camera for the complete film and
compensate via push/pull development!
But from setting ISO of your camera your film has not more/less speed like digital - that's right!

with regards

 

[pentaxuser]

You might be able to help us help you if you took a digital photo of the "offending negatives" so we could look at them. From these we can begin to ask the right questions or even make suggestions. As things stand you will get plenty of suggestions with which to "machine gun " the problem rather than getting suggestions and answers that are able to home in on the issue. The problem with a machine gun is that it can get the job done but waste an awful lot of bullets in the process

In the meantime you might want to look at pictures of negatives where there is a series covering underexposure with the 3 stages of development ( under correct and over) then correct exposure with same 3 stages and finally overexposure with those 3 stages so 9 negatives. Google The Online Darkroom then read the section of "How to Read A Negative" It is a site based in the U.K. but there are others of course

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

Hi avvizzini

What I would suggest is what I do ...
Since your negatives lack contrast, pay attention to what your meter says and notice the light. Think of the diagram in the film box that gives the rules for "Sunny 16" and change the name to "Sunny 11 " and check to see if it makes sense the way your light meter is reading the scene ( this website might be helpful too >> http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm ) . ALSO bracket a little bit since the meter says f22 expose 3 frames each 1 stop over, so 16, 11, 8 ). I am not familiar with your developing methods, I usually agitate however many inversions it takes for the 1st minute and then however many inverstions it takes for 10 seconds every minute after that. Shoot a couple of rolls of film like this .. and the first roll develop exactly as whatever chart it is your are following says to develop it, then do a 2nd roll developed for 30% more and the 3rd one for 30 % less time ... make a contact sheet of the 3 rolls of negatives or scan them the way you do, and compare the images ... and decide which you like the best, and then go out and expose the whole roll like that / expose and develop it the way you liked best ... Personally ( from experience ) I i never had enough exposure when I exposed at box speed, now I always shoot at maybe half box speed so I am at least 1 stop over; and I never developed my film enough when I processed it at the recommended times, now I always over develop 30% but that's me. The other thing that might be going on is you are using a developer that might not build up contrast like other developers. I had this trouble whenever I used Xtol. If you are using Xtol ( or one of its vit c cousins like Caffenol C ) use something else, maybe a middle of the road developer like D76 and it might give you better contrast.

GOOD LUCK !
John

 

[avizzini]

From my impression you are with less experience for photography - right!
So my advice is the following :
1) forget your IPhone for metering Film exposure!
2) forget metering in general with bw film!
3) try to find out the secrets of messurement light and metering exposore beginning next year!

So use your camera automatic ! But listen what camera is using aperature and speed!
For landscape with normal background and 1/3 framed normal sky the camera has enough
precision to meter correct with bw film!
If your films are from low contrast you may use different E.I ( for example E.I. ISO 200 with your
ISO 400 box speed film)!
That would end in push development (1E.V. = 1 stop)!
Pushing films do higher contrast normaly!
But before that you may correct workflow from development!

OK what to do with messurements of your camera into direction of sunlight?
(You should avoid it btw) - you have to correct exposure (the electronic indicates much light and change aperature to less speed much too much)
The same is with sky at 2/3 framing and a dark foreground! So I would avoid the next time to shot
in this way and therefore you may first calibrate contrast!
Later you have to note correction you made with highlighted skys aso. and try to win experience!

In that way : camera indicates 5.6 500sec. but you know shot is in direction of sun!
You correct your overdriven camera values in direction of +1 stop! And have a look if it was enough or it could be more or it was too much! A series of 3exposures can help much for the first time!
And next year if you are from more experience you will begin to messure with lightmeter or spotmeter! (you will need to know the basics from good experience first)

with regards

I'm new-ish to film, I've been doing it for a year or more now. I've gone through about 50 rolls. I've been shooting with digital as a hobby for 7 or so years.

I can't forget about metering because the camera doesn't have an automatic mode. It's a Mamiya 645 1000s. The prism view finder has a meter but I never use it since it adds too much weight when hiking (and at its age I can't imagine it being more accurate than a dedicated meter or an app). So, I stick to the waist level view finder. At this point would automatic be an improvement anyway? Don't automatic modes function the same way as say taking an average reflective reading of the entire scene and spitting out settings. Mostly what I'm doing now minus the metering app "middle-man".

I'll make a note to keep the sky to about 1/3rd the frame.

I'm confusd or miss understanding something, when you talk about using the film at EI 200. If meter the film for 200, wouldn't I want to pull development?
Or are you saying meter at EI 200 or 320 or whatever I may choose and develop it "normally" (In the case of Delta 400 @ 400 ISO w/Ilford DD-X, it'd be 8 minutes)? And in this case it'd be pushing...

I tend not to shoot facing the sun. I do have cases where I want something that puts the sun in dangerously close to causing glare and exposure issues but I do my best to compensate for it. And as I've mentioned before when I'm shooting in the snow I'll add two stops of light based off what I'm metering it at. Perhaps I want to compensate with 3 stops for snowy landscapes? I'll also add maybe a stop or so in other bright/reflective conditions.

Hi avvizzini

What I would suggest is what I do ...
Since your negatives lack contrast, pay attention to what your meter says and notice the light. Think of the diagram in the film box that gives the rules for "Sunny 16" and change the name to "Sunny 11 " and check to see if it makes sense the way your light meter is reading the scene ( this website might be helpful too >> http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm ) . ALSO bracket a little bit since the meter says f22 expose 3 frames each 1 stop over, so 16, 11, 8 ). I am not familiar with your developing methods, I usually agitate however many inversions it takes for the 1st minute and then however many inverstions it takes for 10 seconds every minute after that. Shoot a couple of rolls of film like this .. and the first roll develop exactly as whatever chart it is your are following says to develop it, then do a 2nd roll developed for 30% more and the 3rd one for 30 % less time ... make a contact sheet of the 3 rolls of negatives or scan them the way you do, and compare the images ... and decide which you like the best, and then go out and expose the whole roll like that / expose and develop it the way you liked best ... Personally ( from experience ) I i never had enough exposure when I exposed at box speed, now I always shoot at maybe half box speed so I am at least 1 stop over; and I never developed my film enough when I processed it at the recommended times, now I always over develop 30% but that's me. The other thing that might be going on is you are using a developer that might not build up contrast like other developers. I had this trouble whenever I used Xtol. If you are using Xtol ( or one of its vit c cousins like Caffenol C ) use something else, maybe a middle of the road developer like D76 and it might give you better contrast.

GOOD LUCK !
John

In summary my development method sounds similar to yours. I use Ilford DD-X, I like the results I get with it and it's what Ilford recommends. I pour in the developer (1:4 solution) and agitate for the intial 10s (slow rotatons/inversions) then for each minute of development I do another 10s of inversions. Then ~10s before development ends I slowly dump out the developer. I never reuse the developer.

When you add 30% time to your developement, how greatly does it affect the grain/tones, do you notice a large increase in grain or modest/none? I don't mind grain, but I don't want a whole lot in my landscapes (I know there's going to be some especially with 400 film).

I suppose I could do half of box or maybe 320 and in this case I could still develop normally as if it were 400 (For DD-X it's 8mins) and see some increased contrast, no?

I'll check out that link you gave me.

You might be able to help us help you if you took a digital photo of the "offending negatives" so we could look at them. From these we can begin to ask the right questions or even make suggestions. As things stand you will get plenty of suggestions with which to "machine gun " the problem rather than getting suggestions and answers that are able to home in on the issue. The problem with a machine gun is that it can get the job done but waste an awful lot of bullets in the process

In the meantime you might want to look at pictures of negatives where there is a series covering underexposure with the 3 stages of development ( under correct and over) then correct exposure with same 3 stages and finally overexposure with those 3 stages so 9 negatives. Google The Online Darkroom then read the section of "How to Read A Negative" It is a site based in the U.K. but there are others of course

pentaxuser

I wasn't sure how best to share the negatives/scans/prints as any method would add additional unrelated variables (digital camera, scanner, computer screen settings, etc). In any case I'll share with you the negative-scan-print of the photos that "worked", "Kind of Worked" and "Didn't work as intended" (from the perspective of the final darkroom print not what I can get via a scan + Lightroom).

First image in each album is the negative itself, second image is the unadjusted scan using an Epson v600, third image is a darkroom print of the image. Hopefully this all makes sense and you can get an idea of what I'm doing.

Worked: Clean grain, I like the tones, not too had to print nicely (in my opinion)
Later Afternoon, sunny - Delta 100 @ 100 F32 1s (no filter)
Sample 1 Photos (No darkroom print just yet)

Mid Afternoon, mostly sunny - Delta 400 @ 400 [Lost the settings on this one] (Red Filter #25 - 3 Stops added, Snow 2-3 Stops Added)
Sample 2 Photos

Mid morning, partly cloudy - Delta 400 @ 400 F16 1/60 (Red Filter #25 - 2 Stops added)
Sample 3 Photos

Kind of Worked: Not too grainy (but some), I like the tones for the most part, not too hard to print (in my opinion)
Early Sunset, mostly sunny - Delta 400 @ 400 F8 1/60 (Red Filter #25 - 3 Stops added)
Sample 4 Photos

Didn't Work as Intended: Really Grainy and harsh looking, hard to print (in my opinion)
Early Morning, partly cloudy - Delta 400 @ 400 F16 1/15 (Red Filter #25 - 3 Stops Added, Snow 2 Stops Added)
Sample 5 Photos

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the pictures. I think you are saying that in the case of each negative, other than sample 1 you have made 2 prints of each negative. It looks to me as if one print may be too soft a grade and one too hard i.e. too many greys in one and not enough in the other but a lot of viewers might prefer the harder graded print. A lot of people expect to see snow as close to a burnt-out white as this when it is pristine snow and for the sake of that, your "blacks" may have to be a little too black and lacking in some detail.

If I saw both prints on a wall from say 10 feet I'd be initially attracted to the higher contrast one and only on closer examination might I wonder if there wasn't an "in between" grade that helps with detail in the "blacks" and yet keeps some detail in the highlights.

It might be that intrinsically high contrast scenes with pristine snow will always be difficult to print without quite a bit of burning and dodging.

I probably have a limited ability to read negatives compared to others here who will hopefully comment but In my opinion your exposure settings and development process are fine i.e. certainly no need to change developer or your processing regime and as I said, high mountain snow scenes are far from the easiest to capture. A lot of other kinds of scenes may well result in negatives that are easier to straight print.

If I were you, I'd choose an easier scene on which to experiment with film speeds but as John suggested, I think, I'd be tempted to try 3 shots of say at least one scene at box speed, 320 and 250. You might try two scenes or even three. It's still only just over half a roll. Stick to the same development time that Ilford recommends for 400 and look at them under a loupe on a light box if possible

I think you may find that the improvement at both 320 and 250 is marginal in terms of shadow detail but that is only my assumption based on my reading of your negatives so far. It might be enough of an improvement to make it worthwhile. Only a trial will tell.


pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

1. Do not meter the sky! Leave the sky out of the light reading.
2. The R25 filter factor is three f/stop or eight times longer exposure [23 = 8]
3. Use box speed, pick the darkest area that you want detail to show and take a reading of that area. That reading is Zone 2 or Zone 3, adjust 3 or 2 f/stops, respectively, for the light setting [Zone 5].

 

[jimjm]

Generally, I won't use a red filter for landscapes unless I'm really trying to darken a blue sky and make the clouds look more dramatic, or looking for a specific effect based on the scene. You may be better off using a orange or yellow filter, or no filter at all. If you're using red to try to get more contrast in your shots, this may be introducing some unintended effects or increasing contrast when you don't need to.

Overall, your negs look good and appear to be sufficiently exposed - maybe a bit contrasty however. It appears most of these scenes already have harsh direct lighting, and I've always found that snow scenes or shots at altitude can be a challenge. Your final prints in samples 3, 4 & 5 look like your shadows have started blocking up in the trees, rocks, etc. This may have been a result of your attempt to get "adequate" contrast in the print. Unless this is your intention, I would selectively dodge these areas, or print at an overall lower grade and then burn in the highlights if needed.

I always shoot B/W film about 1 stop overexposed as I find it easier to print negs that are bit denser. Usually I use normal development time, unless it's a contrasty scene and then I may cut the development time about 10-15%. There are no hard and fast rules on this - just try some different methods and use what works best for you.

This is one of the first shots I took when I realized the benefits (in my eye) of overexposing slightly. I remember the negs looked a bit too dense when I first looked at them, but all the images seemed to print easily. I was able to get the shadows nice and deep without losing the detail I wanted to keep. I just metered off a nearby gray wall that was the same tone as the statue and facing the same direction as the front of the statue. If I had just pointed the meter straight up at the scene, I would have underexposed the shot due to the bright sky. I use a small handheld reflected meter with an option for incident metering, and it's worked well in many different situations. I've made 11x14 prints from this 35mm neg and grain is hardly noticable.

TMax100, D-76 1:1, grade #3 on Ilford MG paper

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Can I add a suggestion? Please use a real light meter. I do not know about the spectral response of the iPhone or how the app processes the data. Try using your Mamiya prism finder with its meter.

 

[avizzini]

Thanks for the pictures. I think you are saying that in the case of each negative, other than sample 1 you have made 2 prints of each negative. It looks to me as if one print may be too soft a grade and one too hard i.e. too many greys in one and not enough in the other but a lot of viewers might prefer the harder graded print. A lot of people expect to see snow as close to a burnt-out white as this when it is pristine snow and for the sake of that, your "blacks" may have to be a little too black and lacking in some detail.

If I saw both prints on a wall from say 10 feet I'd be initially attracted to the higher contrast one and only on closer examination might I wonder if there wasn't an "in between" grade that helps with detail in the "blacks" and yet keeps some detail in the highlights.

It might be that intrinsically high contrast scenes with pristine snow will always be difficult to print without quite a bit of burning and dodging.

I probably have a limited ability to read negatives compared to others here who will hopefully comment but In my opinion your exposure settings and development process are fine i.e. certainly no need to change developer or your processing regime and as I said, high mountain snow scenes are far from the easiest to capture. A lot of other kinds of scenes may well result in negatives that are easier to straight print.

If I were you, I'd choose an easier scene on which to experiment with film speeds but as John suggested, I think, I'd be tempted to try 3 shots of say at least one scene at box speed, 320 and 250. You might try two scenes or even three. It's still only just over half a roll. Stick to the same development time that Ilford recommends for 400 and look at them under a loupe on a light box if possible

I think you may find that the improvement at both 320 and 250 is marginal in terms of shadow detail but that is only my assumption based on my reading of your negatives so far. It might be enough of an improvement to make it worthwhile. Only a trial will tell.


pentaxuser

Sorry if I wasn't clear, the 2nd image in each album isn't a darkroom print. It is digital scan of the negative, without any adjustments, just to show what it looks like when scanned straight. Wasn't sure if this was worth including, thought I might help. The last image of each album is the only darkroom print, except for Sample 1 (the last image is a digital scan that was adjusted in Lightroom). The blacks are only too black in the last Sample 5. In the other prints I'm rather content with the blacks. The digital photo doesn't give a perfect 1:1 representation of what they look like in real life, some of the shadow details was lost when photographing the print, my scanner can't fit 11x14.

1. Do not meter the sky! Leave the sky out of the light reading.
2. The R25 filter factor is three f/stop or eight times longer exposure [23 = 8]
3. Use box speed, pick the darkest area that you want detail to show and take a reading of that area. That reading is Zone 2 or Zone 3, adjust 3 or 2 f/stops, respectively, for the light setting [Zone 5].

1) I've been keeping it partially in the meter reading. I'll give it a go with removing it entirely.
2) I think it was B+W (the filter brand) or some other document that mentioned I should add 2.3 stops. In any case of doing a bit more research and seeing the results, I have been rounding it up to 3 stops as you have mentioned.
3) I think that is what I was getting at with my "Scenario 1" I'll also try this.

Generally, I won't use a red filter for landscapes unless I'm really trying to darken a blue sky and make the clouds look more dramatic, or looking for a specific effect based on the scene. You may be better off using a orange or yellow filter, or no filter at all. If you're using red to try to get more contrast in your shots, this may be introducing some unintended effects or increasing contrast when you don't need to.

Overall, your negs look good and appear to be sufficiently exposed - maybe a bit contrasty however. It appears most of these scenes already have harsh direct lighting, and I've always found that snow scenes or shots at altitude can be a challenge. Your final prints in samples 3, 4 & 5 look like your shadows have started blocking up in the trees, rocks, etc. This may have been a result of your attempt to get "adequate" contrast in the print. Unless this is your intention, I would selectively dodge these areas, or print at an overall lower grade and then burn in the highlights if needed.

I always shoot B/W film about 1 stop overexposed as I find it easier to print negs that are bit denser. Usually I use normal development time, unless it's a contrasty scene and then I may cut the development time about 10-15%. There are no hard and fast rules on this - just try some different methods and use what works best for you.

This is one of the first shots I took when I realized the benefits (in my eye) of overexposing slightly. I remember the negs looked a bit too dense when I first looked at them, but all the images seemed to print easily. I was able to get the shadows nice and deep without losing the detail I wanted to keep. I just metered off a nearby gray wall that was the same tone as the statue and facing the same direction as the front of the statue. If I had just pointed the meter straight up at the scene, I would have underexposed the shot due to the bright sky. I use a small handheld reflected meter with an option for incident metering, and it's worked well in many different situations. I've made 11x14 prints from this 35mm neg and grain is hardly noticable.

TMax100, D-76 1:1, grade #3 on Ilford MG paper

View attachment 222648

I use a light red filter for specific purpose of darkening the skys and making the clouds more dramatic. Sample 3 and 4, aren't blocked up as appears in the photo. The details in the dark areas were lost when I photographed the print. My scanner can't fit 11x14 and I didn't have great lighting. Sample 5 is indeed too contrasty, it was a problematic negative to print.

It seems that overall the suggestions often seem to be to just give the film about 1 stop more light than what would be "normal".

Can I add a suggestion? Please use a real light meter. I do not know about the spectral response of the iPhone or how the app processes the data. Try using your Mamiya prism finder with its meter.

I may get around to getting a dedicated light meter app but I have no interest in using my prism view finder. 90% of the time I photograph while hiking and if I'm going to bring a heavy piece of glass/metal, I'd rather it be a lense and not the prism. I know a digital camera's metering abilities wouldn't be a perfect thing to test against but, when comparing readings from the app and what my digital camera reads, they give me comparable readings.

 

[MattKing]

Your negatives look fine to me - I'd look to something in the printing process for an explanation for low contrast prints.
More generally though, I see one problem with your thought process.
If you refer to a "push", or a pull, it is a reference only to the development, not exposure.
If you push development, you increase development to increase contrast. That is often associated with intentional under-exposure, but it doesn't have to be.
If you pull development, you decrease development to decrease contrast. A pull development often benefits from an associated increase in exposure, but it isn't always necessary.
By the way, scenes of snow, rock and sky are challenging to meter using a reflected light meter!

 

[trendland]

I'm new-ish to film, I've been doing it for a year or more now. I've gone through about 50 rolls. I've been shooting with digital as a hobby for 7 or so years.

I can't forget about metering because the camera doesn't have an automatic mode. It's a Mamiya 645 1000s.

Of course, that's something completely different! Some Mamiya 645 1000s owners shot with
sunny 16! But here I can also see the need to use a lightmeter

with regards

 

[Paul Howell]

Contrast is dependent on the taste of the shooter. What can look fine to me may look flat to someone else. As you are scanning and processing in PS or LR, have you toyed with increasing contrast? If you feel that your negatives are as a rule flat increase development by 10 to 20%. Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlight, well learn the Zone System or Beyond the Zone System. In terms of Sunny 16, it can work once you train you eye to tell difference between open shadow and deep shadow, and with practice and decide the shadow tones for subjects at a distance. I use Sunny 16 at times with my older cameras with broken meters, best in good lighting. But there is a reason most pro photographers use a light meter and many use incident meters, they work better than guessing.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I am presently taking a medium format photography class at a local university. We use Mamiya C220 cameras, Sekonic L308s light meters, and Ilford HP5 Plus film. Standard class procedure is to set the light meter to one-half of box ISO (meter at ISO 200 vs. Ilford's recommended 400). That is we "overexpose" by one stop (relative to Ilford's box film speed).

Recommended beginner metering method is to take a reflected reading from a gray card held in the same light as the subject. Later we learned how to meter a Zone III shadow and then add two stops.

At development we use either Kodak D-76 at 1+1, or Compard R09 One Shot rodinal at 1+50 - 12 minutes either way at 68*F/20*C. Ilford's data sheet and several other sources recommend 11 minutes for this combination of film and developer.

When I asked the instructor why we overexpose and overdevelop, she said it was because many students were needing to use higher contrast filters (#3) when printing. With this combination most prints are now being made with #2 or #2-1/2 contrast filters, while still getting good shadow detail.

 

[jeffreyg]

Instead of trying different approaches until you find what might work, why not standardize your trial. Take a gray card in shadowless even light. Set your ISO to the mfg's recommendation for your Delta 400 @400. Without bothering to focus fill the frame with the gray card. Click off a couple of frames with the lens cap on then expose +3 stops then reducing by half stops until you expose at the original reading then go minus 1/2 up to minus three. ( with 120 it may take two rolls) Develop according to mfg's time/temp. When the film is dry make a step test print using the unexposed frames @ enlarger lens f8 raised to 8x10. When that print is dry, see where it just stops being pure black. Cut pieces of the paper you will print on and label and print each of the other negatives at f8 with the enlarger raised to 8x10 coverage at the time it just left black. After processing, washing and drying see which exposure is closest to the tone of the gray card. That is the ISO for your gear with that film. For example if the closest to gray requires more time say one stop it means your ISO could be 200 or whatever the difference you find with the samples You can adjust the time of development to get more or less contrast as desired for the subjects you photograph. Printing the unexposed test was to accommodate film fog. The rest takes into account possible differences in actual shutter operation. you should repeat this for each different film. A couple of rolls is better than missing what you want from a shooting outing. There are similar tests with slight variations.

Unless you want dark blue skies avoid a red filter. Try no filter, a yellow, light orange or orange they will render a more natural appearance. I generally would stick with a yellow or light orange. You can always burn the sky or split print with filters when printing.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For those bashing the light meter app in the iPhone - I have compared it against my Sekonic 408 and my Minolta SpotMeter F (two very high quality handheld light meters) and it has been within 1/10th of a stop of both of them under a wide range of lighting conditions. Just because something is digital doesn't mean it is inherently untrustworthy. That said, do NOT use an in-camera meter from a digital camera - those meters are set for the sensor in the camera in question, which is often off of true ISO by as much as 1 1/2 stops over or under. That varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and from model to model.

 

[winger]

I'm confusd or miss understanding something, when you talk about using the film at EI 200. If meter the film for 200, wouldn't I want to pull development?

Not necessarily. When you decide to shoot at something other than the box speed, you can still develop at the regular times. Personally, I shoot Delta400 at 320, but develop at about the norm. I shoot Delta100 at 80 and develop at the norm as well. But that's me. And I use an incident meter, not a reflective one. It would be good for you to bracket when you shoot and keep track of what the meter reading was and which shot it is so that you can decide which frame is the way you wanted it. Develop all at the standard time for the temperature.

What you're seeing in the printing may be the issue of printing rather than the exposing of the negative. It's easier to add contrast than it is to remove it. ie. if your negative seems flat, then you can still make a fairly punchy print. If your neg is contrasty, you won't have detail in either the highlights or the shadows (or, worse, both) no matter what you do in printing. You didn't say if you're using multigrade paper and how you're doing the printing (time in developer, etc..). You don't have exactly where in the US you are, but if there's a Photrio-er near you who knows how to print well, maybe you can set up a mini class with them? I know I'd be willing to go over stuff in person with anyone near me learning how to print.

+ everything MattKing said.

 

[trendland]

For those bashing the light meter app in the iPhone - I have compared it against my Sekonic 408 and my Minolta SpotMeter F (two very high quality handheld light meters) and it has been within 1/10th of a stop of both of them under a wide range of lighting conditions. Just because something is digital doesn't mean it is inherently untrustworthy. That said, do NOT use an in-camera meter from a digital camera - those meters are set for the sensor in the camera in question, which is often off of true ISO by as much as 1 1/2 stops over or under. That varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and from model to model.

Well I would not bash the IPhone app - I would bash light meters in general (and spotmeters)!
From what reason? You should have a feeling for right exposure (not at the beginning)!

I would better not state but if you ask me the answer is clear :
With an experience > 20 years you should use exposure tools for controlling your decision of
exposure! And ten years later you should through away your meters!
Every discussion of spot metering highlights and deep shadow areas is a discussion for newbees
so I wonder about much too often!
But it is fine to think about the basics in general! But basics in photography should not be
basics about exposure! If they are from exeption they should not be about exposure tools!
EXCEPTION SOMEONE IS NEW - LIKE OUR MUCH FRIENDLY OP HERE - OF COURSE!

IF I REMEMBER LATEST POSTINGS -Here are so many new from joined date > 8 years..???

So I more and more wonder about?????!

 

[trendland]

Not necessarily. When you decide to shoot at something other than the box speed, you can still develop at the regular times. Personally, I shoot Delta400 at 320, but develop at about the norm. I shoot Delta100 at 80 and develop at the norm as well. But that's me. And I use an incident meter, not a reflective one. It would be good for you to bracket when you shoot and keep track of what the meter reading was and which shot it is so that you can decide which frame is the way you wanted it. Develop all at the standard time for the temperature.

What you're seeing in the printing may be the issue of printing rather than the exposing of the negative. It's easier to add contrast than it is to remove it. ie. if your negative seems flat, then you can still make a fairly punchy print. If your neg is contrasty, you won't have detail in either the highlights or the shadows (or, worse, both) no matter what you do in printing. You didn't say if you're using multigrade paper and how you're doing the printing (time in developer, etc..). You don't have exactly where in the US you are, but if there's a Photrio-er near you who knows how to print well, maybe you can set up a mini class with them? I know I'd be willing to go over stuff in person with anyone near me learning how to print.

+ everything MattKing said.

I should explain winger (exklusive for you) ...representative of all :

With latest posts I do not mean latest posts in this thread!

Because my concern is about latest posts in general (last 3 month or so)

with regards

 

[John Koehrer]

Hey trendland, Where did you get the impression the OP had 20-30 years experience?
Anyway, Whether you use spot, average reflected or incident with a bit of experience you can
judge what the shadows will do with any of them after taking a reading. Similar to sunny 16,
look & recognize what will happen.

 

[Bill Burk]

I am presently taking a medium format photography class at a local university. We use Mamiya C220 cameras, Sekonic L308s light meters, and Ilford HP5 Plus film. Standard class procedure is to set the light meter to one-half of box ISO (meter at ISO 200 vs. Ilford's recommended 400). That is we "overexpose" by one stop (relative to Ilford's box film speed).

Recommended beginner metering method is to take a reflected reading from a gray card held in the same light as the subject. Later we learned how to meter a Zone III shadow and then add two stops.

At development we use either Kodak D-76 at 1+1, or Compard R09 One Shot rodinal at 1+50 - 12 minutes either way at 68*F/20*C. Ilford's data sheet and several other sources recommend 11 minutes for this combination of film and developer.

When I asked the instructor why we overexpose and overdevelop, she said it was because many students were needing to use higher contrast filters (#3) when printing. With this combination most prints are now being made with #2 or #2-1/2 contrast filters, while still getting good shadow detail.

You have a good teacher.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

From my impression you are with less experience for photography - right!
So my advice is the following :
1) forget your IPhone for metering Film exposure!
2) forget metering in general with bw film!
3) try to find out the secrets of messurement light and metering exposore beginning next year!

So use your camera automatic ! But listen what camera is using aperature and speed!
For landscape with normal background and 1/3 framed normal sky the camera has enough
precision to meter correct with bw film!
If your films are from low contrast you may use different E.I ( for example E.I. ISO 200 with your
ISO 400 box speed film)!
That would end in push development (1E.V. = 1 stop)!
Pushing films do higher contrast normaly!
But before that you may correct workflow from development!

OK what to do with messurements of your camera into direction of sunlight?
(You should avoid it btw) - you have to correct exposure (the electronic indicates much light and change aperature to less speed much too much)
The same is with sky at 2/3 framing and a dark foreground! So I would avoid the next time to shot
in this way and therefore you may first calibrate contrast!
Later you have to note correction you made with highlighted skys aso. and try to win experience!

In that way : camera indicates 5.6 500sec. but you know shot is in direction of sun!
You correct your overdriven camera values in direction of +1 stop! And have a look if it was enough or it could be more or it was too much! A series of 3exposures can help much for the first time!
And next year if you are from more experience you will begin to messure with lightmeter or spotmeter! (you will need to know the basics from good experience first)

with regards

Nicely done Trendland!

You write your prose in a poetic way and I kinda dig it now.

Oh and, factually, I'm with you man.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I'm new-ish to film, I've been doing it for a year or more now. I've gone through about 50 rolls. I've been shooting with digital as a hobby for 7 or so years.


Worked: Clean grain, I like the tones, not too had to print nicely (in my opinion)
Later Afternoon, sunny - Delta 100 @ 100 F32 1s (no filter)
Sample 1 Photos (No darkroom print just yet)

Mid Afternoon, mostly sunny - Delta 400 @ 400 [Lost the settings on this one] (Red Filter #25 - 3 Stops added, Snow 2-3 Stops Added)
Sample 2 Photos

Mid morning, partly cloudy - Delta 400 @ 400 F16 1/60 (Red Filter #25 - 2 Stops added)
Sample 3 Photos

Kind of Worked: Not too grainy (but some), I like the tones for the most part, not too hard to print (in my opinion)
Early Sunset, mostly sunny - Delta 400 @ 400 F8 1/60 (Red Filter #25 - 3 Stops added)
Sample 4 Photos

Didn't Work as Intended: Really Grainy and harsh looking, hard to print (in my opinion)
Early Morning, partly cloudy - Delta 400 @ 400 F16 1/15 (Red Filter #25 - 3 Stops Added, Snow 2 Stops Added)
Sample 5 Photos

It seems like these prints (but since you didn't describe your printing procedure... I'm only guessing) were not dodged in the shadows at all. Dodging lets you raise the values (by reducing the paper exposure in shadow areas) that are too dark and don't reveal sufficient detail. For example, the sky/clouds are fantastic. The sunlight snow is quite good, The deep shadow area in the depths of the "gullies" are almost too black. Imagine dodging those gullies. You could raise the amount of detail there to give your print a more balanced appearance. Think about some of the more famous Ansel Adams images. If you read his book "The making of 25 Images" - I believe that is the title, he walks through the film development and printing for each of them You get to see the flat print and the print he makes after all of the darkroom antics needed to produce a fine image. You'll see that your "worst" image is still very printable. You just gotta sharpen your print skills.

 

[trendland]

Nicely done Trendland!

You write your prose in a poetic way and I kinda dig it now.

Oh and, factually, I'm with you man.

Serious concern: perhaps one should indeed let the camera automatic work first!
From trouble with some 7% wrong exposure due to ineffective automatic one can learn a lot!

with regards