Can we please try to get the nomenclature straight?
Turns out he was just taking an incident reading of the overall scene and adding X stops. This is not the definition of overexposure as far as I can tell.
same thing. corrected the exposure by adding more time and over exposing.Can we please try to get the nomenclature straight? What you describe isn't overexposure, it's correct(ed) exposure!
As Dusty wrote, the nomenclature issue isn't just peripheral to the topic of this thread.Many arguments/discussions eventually devolve into a dispute over the meaning of words. That's when I leave.
Analogous to "overcooking" - "over" means too much, not just increased over whatever reference.its not ? what is it if the original metered exposure was the alleged correct exposure and someone adds 2 or 3 stops to it, isn't that over exposing. compensation by 2 or 3 stops is the same thing
same thing. corrected the exposure by adding more time and over exposing.
what are you both suggesting over exposure is ?
so, exposing film upto 5 stops more than recommended by (box speed) the iso determined by the manufacturer, and developing it for more time than recommended by the manufacturers isn't over exposing and over developing his film?Analogous to "overcooking" - "over" means too much, not just increased over whatever reference.
Augmented exposure or truncated exposure would be my etymologic suggestion.I prefer "increased" exposure, because it makes these sorts of discussions better, but otherwise I agree.
Nice images on that site, using a variety of films, cameras, and formats. He’s clearly an experimenter, and it’s working for him.I believe this is also him: https://www.justalittlepatience.com/
so, exposing film upto 5 stops more than recommended by (box speed) the iso determined by the manufacturer, and developing it for more time than recommended by the manufacturers isn't over exposing and over developing his film?
its more than the meter says, its more than the manufacturers suggest and probably more than zone system users would suggest..
There seems to be a "you have to see everything in the shadows and everything has to be super sharp" aesthetic happening theses days. I'm a bit puzzled by it, as it doesn't correspond to what I like about photography, both as a photographer and, even more, as an admirer of great photographers, who knew what was important to show and what was important to leaving in the dark (W. Eugene Smith comes to mind, but there are others).
If one gives a piece of film the proper exposure one wanted to give it, how can it be over or under exposed?
To me, "overexposed" relates to the result, not the process. A negative is overexposed when there is more density in all the relevant areas than what is necessary and what I want. For a transparency - where it is quite critical - the important parts of the subject are too light."Overexposed" means received more exposure than recommended by the manufacturer for the lighting conditions. That is not compensation - it's more exposure whether or not there's a reason for it (compensation is done for a reason, such as a backlit subject, etc.). The meaning of the word is straightforward. For a subject (either a scene or a bit of a scene), the recommended exposure is established, when more exposure is given, that's overexposure. You can see what it means by taking photos of a sheet white paper with words written in pencil on it. Overexposure will eat at the words.
+1The zone system is about placement - i.e., about figuring out what you want to see, and, obviously, what you want to hide, and "placing" values in the zone you want them to fall. That means that for certain scenes, you may want to reveal what's in the shadows, and, for others, you may want your shadows with little or no detail.
A negative is overexposed when there is more density in all the relevant areas than what is necessary and what I want.
In the original article, his images looked possibly up to one stop overexposed and not at all overdeveloped. He really should have shown the negatives on a light-table.
From what I can tell, people who think they get great results from gross overexposure don't know how to use their meter. "Overexposing" a backlit portrait of someone 2 stops (like in the original article) isn't actually overexposing. Any overdevelopment done on those images just boosted contrast - didn't horribly clump the grain and destroy the highlights (like genuine overdevelopment does).
Believe me. I have both truly overexposed and overdeveloped negatives to the point where the entire thing was black.
We'll just have to disagree about that and make it clear what each other means, if needed. Manufacturers recommend starting points to find one's own time -- which might end up being the manufacturer's 'recommended' times. Too many other variables for a manufacturer to state a spot-on specific time and temp for a particular developer/film combo for B&W.No. Overexposure is when the negative has been given more exposure than recommended by the manufacturer based on the lighting. It does not mean "unacceptably dense result".
Overexposure does not necessarily generate "unacceptably dense results." If it is exactly the way you wanted it to be, you wanted it overexposed.
We'll just have to disagree about that and make it clear what each other means, if needed. Manufacturers recommend starting points to find one's own time -- which might end up being the manufacturer's 'recommended' times. Too many other variables for a manufacturer to state a spot-on specific time and temp for a particular developer/film combo for B&W.
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?