The film can handle that much range but you will never need it all.**
Do everything you would normally do.
Thanks for what looks like sound advice....Will you be printing these negatives in a darkroom or scanning them and processing/editing in software?
...it’s better to give slightly more than perfect exposure...
Thanks for what looks like sound advice.
I will not be printing them myself, but the aim is to get to the stage where I can select successful ones for high res scanning and processing digitally (but until then it will be as it comes out from the lab). Would I still be able to get the info that this film records though it falls outside of the 11-zone parameters if I scanned and processed, or does it become restricted by that stage due to digitisation?
Bill's reference to clipping is a reference to losing detail in general, not over-exposing.Ok, so now I have to ask what is meant by the above line: it implies "to over-expose" but if it clips on the black side, surely it would be better to under-expose a bit? You spoke earlier about 2/3 stop less than the box speed... does that mean e.g. iso 400 would come down to below 300, i.e. slower film hence 2/3 stop less exposed than the box suggestion?
I use box speed and then use the Zone System to bring out the shadow details and develop normally. Since you are not printing the photographs yourself, that will work well. Modern films no longer require changing the development times.
I don;t do my own printing or processing. I scan my film with my own scanner. I shoot at box speed. Here are Tmax 100 samples. https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...&tags=tmax100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1Thanks for what looks like sound advice.
I will not be printing them myself, but the aim is to get to the stage where I can select successful ones for high res scanning and processing digitally (but until then it will be as it comes out from the lab). Would I still be able to get the info that this film records though it falls outside of the 11-zone parameters if I scanned and processed, or does it become restricted by that stage due to digitisation?
I don;t do my own printing or processing. I scan my film with my own scanner. I shoot at box speed. Here are Tmax 100 samples. https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=tmax100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1
Why do you want to use the zone system if you're not processing or printing but scanning?
The way that you measure speed in a Zone system environment returns a speed that is 2/3 of a stop less than if you measure speed using the box or ISO speed method, so ISO 400 film will generally work out to have a Zone system EI of 250.
The way that you measure speed in a Zone system environment returns a speed that is 2/3 of a stop less than if you measure speed using the box or ISO speed method, so ISO 400 film will generally work out to have a Zone system EI of 250.
Although it can be read from other posts, but no-one has yet explicitly objected to this notion of symmetry in dynamic range, and it also occurs in the posting below:and I now have a range of approx. 5 stops either side of middle grey?
Much appreciated!
I don't think this is entirely correct. Higher dynamic range does not per se impact shadow detail with negative film, because the ISO standard is essentially a measure of shadow detail. I.e. dynamic range downwards of middle gray is cancelled out as long as you stick more or less to the ISO rating. So yes, pure black is pure black, however there is, under reasonable conditions, no such thing as pure white (pure black on the negative) - because the dynamic range towards highlights is huge, and they can be extracted in printing or (scanner permitting) in scanning.High dynamic range mostly means that you'll have more chance having details in shadow areas (zones II, III & IV) and highlights (zone (VI, VII, VIII). Remember that no matter what the film range may be, middle grey will always be middle gray, pure black will always be pure black, pure white will always be pure white.
Just to make the point that lowering the ISO means you will increase shutter speed or Fstop for a given scene to result in more exposureOk, so now I have to ask what is meant by the above line: it implies "to over-expose" but if it clips on the black side, surely it would be better to under-expose a bit? You spoke earlier about 2/3 stop less than the box speed... does that mean e.g. iso 400 would come down to below 300, i.e. slower film hence 2/3 stop less exposed than the box suggestion?
initially, because it gives me a consistent approach against which to quantify the results. Else I am just guessing what went right and what went wrong.
And then in the end because when I scan, it will be with the intention of digitally processing and printing.
Although it can be read from other posts, but no-one has yet explicitly objected to this notion of symmetry in dynamic range, and it also occurs in the posting below:
I don't think this is entirely correct. Higher dynamic range does not per se impact shadow detail with negative film, because the ISO standard is essentially a measure of shadow detail. I.e. dynamic range downwards of middle gray is cancelled out as long as you stick more or less to the ISO rating. So yes, pure black is pure black, however there is, under reasonable conditions, no such thing as pure white (pure black on the negative) - because the dynamic range towards highlights is huge, and they can be extracted in printing or (scanner permitting) in scanning.
Does that mean that even middle grey, on the zone system, should b 2/3 stop less? (I ask because it seems to be counter-intuitive?)
Just to emphasize, when you read this, it is really important to remember that "darkest spot" should be read as "darkest spot which has detail that you need to record".Reading:
a. Walk up close to the subject, read the darkest spot
b. Stand at camera position and read the darkest spot
Actually, 2/3 stop more, because if the film speed is 2/3 stop less, the meter reading will result in you giving the film 2/3 of a stop more light.Does that mean that even middle grey, on the zone system, should b 2/3 stop less? (I ask because it seems to be counter-intuitive?)
As others have alluded, the bottleneck of dynamic range in your workflow is likely to be the scanner. Adox Silvermax 100, for example, was a film promoted to have a wide dynamic range. Some people said that their scanner was incapable of capturing all that in a single pass. So they resorted to making multiple scans of a negative and digitally merging them. This why people often go for a flatter negative when will be scanned. This may be tricky when using a lab to do the scanning. When you get back the scanned images, and there is a loss of detail at high or low end, there is the question of whether the detail was never recorded by the negative or whether was lost in the scanning process. You might be able to examine the negatives with a loupe and see if the detail is there. In any case, the scanning process can have big impact on final result so you want to become knowledgeable about it.
Today I was given Kodak's 120 Tmax to try out, and when I Googled I found that the dynamic range is 19 stops!
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?