Thanks for those resources. I will study them, and they are bookmarked for future reference.
I've often referred people to the internet site linked below when they have questions about assessing negatives. The visual aid referred to in it isn't perfect, but it does give someone at least an idea about how to approach the issue:
Assessing negatives
One of the things I particularly like about the linked site is the appearance of the negative described as the correctly exposed and developed negative. Many less experienced people seem to assume that negatives should appear more dense and contrasty then is actually best.
Thanks for those resources. I will study them, and they are bookmarked for future reference.Ilford also have some good information on assessing negatives.
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/common-processing-problems/
Honestly, when I started this post, I was expecting to be told my HP5+ negatives are too dense. But there seems to be more concern about my Arista Ultra 400 negatives being too thin.
Based on all the helpful feedback:
For the next roll of Arista Ultra 400, I will want to increase my development time - but by how much? That is, what is the minimum amount of added time that will produce a noticable increase in density - 10%? 20%?
Next time I shoot Ilford HP5+ I will set my meter to EI 320 or 400 rather than 250, and I will also either reduce the development time a little bit, and/or reduce my agitation some.
As for my inconsistent exposures - I am still thinking about that problem. After doing comparison tests with gray cards I really do not believe my meters are significantly inaccurate. It seems unlikely that the hand-held meters would be inconsistent, but I need to rule that out. For the time being, I am going to switch from using the Sekonic L-308s to my Gossen Luna-Lux under the assumption that it is unlikely that both meters have some kind of electromechanical malfunction that would make them give sporadic results. (I do know one of the Pentax internal meters gives random erroneous results, but most of my exposures have been based on the hand-held meter readings.)
I am also reasonably confident that the problem seen in these two rolls is not due to the light changing between metering and exposure.
The most likely cause of erratic exposures is probably my incident metering technique. Perhaps I am being too careless when aiming the incident dome at the camera / lightsource(?)
I would really like to be able to trust the built-in camera meters more, and use the incident meter less. I don't remember having much trouble back when I was shooting slides (1970-2010). But after shooting digital-only for 10 years, I seem to have lost the knack for manual metering.
Well, I must admit, I do have the resources, and probably the space, to build a small darkroom in my basement. The space would need to be adjacent to my other hobby - woodworking/boatbuilding, with all that dust, so less than ideal. But truth is, I am rather ambivalent about prints.It's a great shame that not everyone has the space and possibly the resources needed to build a darkroom
Well, I must admit, I do have the resources, and probably the space, to build a small darkroom in my basement. The space would need to be adjacent to my other hobby - woodworking/boatbuilding, with all that dust, so less than ideal. But truth is, I am rather ambivalent about prints.
I do enjoy making prints, and looking at prints made by others,. But I keep asking myself, "What am I going to do with a lot of prints?" Most likely, they will end up in a box under my bed, and the only person to ever see my prints will be whoever gets stuck with putting all my stuff in the rubbish when I die.
Still, I may decide to build that little darkroom one day. I am getting somewhat allergic to wood dust, so my boatbuilding days may be about over. I will need some kind of project to occupy my time.
But I keep asking myself, "What am I going to do with a lot of prints?"
Well, make them, if course
Speaking from a personal perspective, one of the things I like the most about photography is the printmaking process. Surely I don't actually need all those prints for anything. I don't sell them and most of them don't end up hanging on walls. So what? Do you build boats only because you need many boats, or also because you enjoy the process? Do you make photographs only because you need the images, or also because you like the process?
That's correct, I'm a printer who happens to like photography. Initially I thought the opposite, and I still enjoy the actual shooting part as well, but I learned that I probably like printing even more.Sounds like perhaps you like printing more than actual photography
Re: exposure, why not compare your meter readings against "Sunny-16" and bracket a couple of exposures?
Practical sensitivity of Fomapan 400 varies from 125 ISO to 400 ISO depending on the batch (emulsion number). I do not use this film without prior testing
Jerzy Łapiński
Thanks for the replies. Advice like this is the reason I have decided to eliminate Arista/Foma from my list of potential "favorite" films. I liked the one roll of Foma 200 I tried. But not well enough to jump through a lot of hoops to use it.[...] I went down a rabbit hole with Arista 200. It was difficult and took a LOT of experimentation for me to get good printable negatives- my exposure and development times were far different from “recommended.” Conversely I did a series of tests for a class like the example negatives/prints that Matt linked to with TMax 100 and TMax RS developer. The results showed the best print was from the negative rated at ISO 100 (box speed) and developed at the time/temperature recommended by Kodak! Imagine that.
I've never used an incident meter in my life, and never had a reason to do so I suppose. An in-camera, TTL spot meter is the way to go, when you have one you'll see that the exposure changes wildly when you move the point of focus around. A center weighted meter can't see the differences, it's all about averaging things out towards the center.
You can get accurate exposures w/ center weighted TTL metering, but it takes a few rolls of film and copious notes to figure out just exactly how it should be understood. That's why I much prefer a camera w/ in-camera, TTL spot, and it needs AE-Lock as well. It's virtually impossible to get bad exposures if you have the value locked where you put it in the viewfinder.
Sounds like perhaps you like printing more than actual photography
To me, printing is an integral part of actual photography - in fact the part that makes it "actual".
Just as important as the "capture" part of the process.
I know that's your view on it, Matt. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Garry Winogrand's “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” means more to me when the result is a print.
Thanks for responding. If you were going to develop another roll of Astia Ultra 400 in the same developer, do you think increasing the time by 10-15% would be enough? Or would you add more than that?To me, both are exposed well. The Ultra could do with a bit more time in the developer. But.. it really all depends what you want to do with the negatives. If you are just scanning them, then I would think that the Ultra negs will be fine as is. Wet printing? Nope. I would definitely extend the time for the Ultra.
Thanks for responding. If you were going to develop another roll of Astia Ultra 400 in the same developer, do you think increasing the time by 10-15% would be enough? Or would you add more than that?
My prints are perfectly and technically correct and beautiful as well as artistic to the highest order as one would expect from me. I hold back from publishing them to fear of shaming some of those here.I don't think it is an either/or question.
A technically great print of a boring subject is, indeed, a boring print.
But a technically and artistically great print of an meaningful subject has a value of its own - the resulting thing is very special, and worth striving for. And it certainly is "actual" photography.
Garry Winogrand's “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” means more to me when the result is a print.
My prints are perfectly and technically correct and beautiful as well as artistic to the highest order as one would expect from me. I hold back from publishing them to fear of shaming some of those here.
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?