pull tri-x because too close flash?

[fate2fade]

hi all,

new to the board and hoping to salvage a shoot. i recently took up close (50mm lens, very intimate aesthetic and distance) photographs of a girl using a nikon sb-15 with the stock sw-6 "wide adapter" or diffuser. i used the flash on manual mode because mistakes happen. was way too close with too open apertures.

i can't remember exactly, but i think i shot mostly between f4 - f8. i think most f5.6. some f11, but only a few. and most of the shots were within 8 feet, many closer. me standing and kneeling at the bedside, her on the bed. dimly lit room and 1/250 shutter speed, so ambient light is not significant. according to that guide number formula, i'd be accurate if the film was like 100 or 50 iso.

should i have the lab pull the film one stop? or some say tri-x portraits look great over exposed and just develop normally? is this too overexposed?

i am new to using a flash and have never had film pulled. i cannot develop these myself. would really, really like to get usable images off this roll.

any suggestions would be much appreciated.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Two to three stops isn't the end of the world. In fact, that first stop is what smart people generally shoot Tri-X at (200). If you are going to print it in the darkroom, just develop normally, then print through the density. If you are going to scan it, you might have problems but you are within the realm of usability with regular development depending on the scanner. Your negs are going to be pretty grainy regardless. Pulling it if you are going to scan might make sense.

You could have the lab do a clip test if that is something they will do. You will most likely lose a few frames, but you will be able to judge whether or not the development is going to work for your intended purposes.

Hope that helps you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You need to use the Guide Number. If the Guide Number still provides over exposed negatives, increase the Guide Number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_number
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-guide-numbers​

 

[fate2fade]

that reply is very helpful, patrick. can i ask what the disadvantages of pulling the film a stop would be? i do want to scan, but it's nice to know printing will remain an option even if they negatives are blown out.

i appreciate the reply, sirius. unfortunately it's too late to go back and use the flash correctly. i'll be sure to next time, but this particular shoot is of significance to me and cannot be re-done.

 

[MattKing]

Pulling doesn't change the film's sensitivity (much). It does lower the contrast.
If you did your own development, I would recommend something like Perceptol, which does reduce the film sensitivity a bit.
If you are able to duplicate the error, it would be worthwhile to shoot another roll, have it developed and then evaluate the results with the help of the lab.
And by the way, welcome to APUG.

 

[LAG]

hi all,

new to the board and hoping to salvage a shoot. i recently took up close (50mm lens, very intimate aesthetic and distance) photographs of a girl using a nikon sb-15 with the stock sw-6 "wide adapter" or diffuser. i used the flash on manual mode because mistakes happen. was way too close with too open apertures.

i can't remember exactly, but i think i shot mostly between f4 - f8. i think most f5.6. some f11, but only a few. and most of the shots were within 8 feet, many closer. me standing and kneeling at the bedside, her on the bed. dimly lit room and 1/250 shutter speed, so ambient light is not significant. according to that guide number formula, i'd be accurate if the film was like 100 or 50 iso.

should i have the lab pull the film one stop? or some say tri-x portraits look great over exposed and just develop normally? is this too overexposed?

i am new to using a flash and have never had film pulled. i cannot develop these myself. would really, really like to get usable images off this roll.

any suggestions would be much appreciated.

If you're not going to develop the film yourself, then Lab=Develop normally

Best!

 

[Sirius Glass]

that reply is very helpful, patrick. can i ask what the disadvantages of pulling the film a stop would be? i do want to scan, but it's nice to know printing will remain an option even if they negatives are blown out.

i appreciate the reply, sirius. unfortunately it's too late to go back and use the flash correctly. i'll be sure to next time, but this particular shoot is of significance to me and cannot be re-done.

I will ship a time machine to you when I get it into production. Right now I am having development issues with the engineering model. In the meantime, the film develop normally.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Film that is overexposed by 4.5 stops can still provide good negatives WITHOUT any development compensation. The latitude of many films is from 4.5 stops over to 1 stop over-exposure. If you 'pull' the film you may get muddy negatives.

BTW, take pity on your model(s). No one likes a flash directly in their face. Use one or two wireless flash units not mounted on the camera. Or even better use two or more studio lights. Your photos will look more natural.

 

[Loren Sattler]

I am curious what camera you used? If it was a typical 35mm SLR with focal plane shutter, I would think you may have trouble with the shutter speed being so fast at 1/250 second. Most focal plane shutters require 1/60 second shutter speed or slower to synch with the flash.

 

[fate2fade]

^FA. says 1/250 is the speed.

learning artificial lighting is on my to-do list, Gerald. to this point i've just said i like the harsh, nan goldin look. suppose i should learn how to do it right before i claim a prefer it wrong.

Sirius, please do ship when you have that finalized. i'd like to go back and re-do this particular shoot again and again for a few reasons.

thanks for the warm welcome and all the suggestions. taking the consensus and going with normal developing. if they turn out alright i'll share a few (after reviewing board policy on nakey-ness, of course).

 

[Sirius Glass]

In general I found that flash can produce harsh contrast so over time I have learned to bounce the flash. One needs to find a white wall or ceiling for that when shooting color, not so much for black & white.

 

[klownshed]

One needs to find a white wall or ceiling for that when shooting color, not so much for black & white.

Why?

Light doesn't change colour when bounced off a coloured wall or ceiling.

 

[markbarendt]

The short answer is no.

Variances in exposure do not indicate a need for a contrast adjustment. What it indicates is a need to change print exposure to place the subject matter properly on the paper/in the positive.

 

[bdial]

Why?

Light doesn't change colour when bounced off a coloured wall or ceiling.

The light reflected by a colored wall or ceiling is the color of that surface, not white.

 

[klownshed]

The light reflected by a colored wall or ceiling is the color of that surface, not white.

Oops.

I actually know that. I even studied physics at Uni!. I don't know what happens to my brain sometimes.

Pigments appear as colour as they absorb different frequencies of light. And bounce off a black wall and you'll get nothing...

I've reached that point in life where I get a little bit more stupid every day and anything new learnt means old knowledge has to make way! ;-)

 

[fate2fade]

not having the lab pull was the way to go. shots were all exposed just fine. and over exposed on another roll where i used the ttl setting. will have to read the manual and do some test shots. thanks again for the good advice.

 

[benjiboy]

The light reflected by a colored wall or ceiling is the color of that surface, not white.

That's right, it's called parasitic reflection.

 

[trendland]

Why?

Light doesn't change colour when bounced off a coloured wall or ceiling.

Oh ...Oh...Oh.... klownshed ???
I just remember two situations from early jobs. The first (very first) in a lab, I was
complete unexperienced to that time and I stood under massive pressure from kolleges because of that.
But I was to that early time stil experienced in photography (today just a little bit more but not much more)
A client had massive red and massive orange/yellow colors to some of his beach pictures from holidays.
A college who was working in the lab to more than 15 years was placed the whole order with color corections to the
3. time. Nobody was able to handle this colors as I decided to ask the cliend :
"Some of the shots were made under a
parasol on the beach - could that be happened?" The answer was : Yes - how can you know this?" I asked about the colors of the parasols-they have been ??
RED and Orange striped the next parasol was YELLOW/ORANGE.
Then I stated: " Sorry Sir here is no way to get normal colors with corrections I apologise much to inconvience you have
but the reason is on your shooting.There is no way to make it unhappen."
MY GREAT HOUR - WITH THE HATE OF ALL COLLEGES WITHIN THE NEXT WEEKS .......
The second situation was on a motor show. A photographer was accompanied
by two pretty young ladys - they were equiped with modernest DSLR's with flashes on camera.
I never saw again such pretty female photographers ! But after a while I doubt a bit to their proffession....
The young ladys uses their flashes all the
time. (The motor show was fully lighted)
I worried about their batterie live.
Then I noticed how their flashes were in use : Indirect against the ceiling of the hall (the height of the ceiling was min.
12meter).....and the color of the ceiling?
Matt Black........?

But notice klownshed : Reflected light has often unexpected amazing properties.The strenght is depending to
the distance in a square-law function,
angel of incidence equals exitangel
AND when you are flashing indirectly normal gray, white, (matt black )
objects you will not have other colors.
Try it and use a flash agains a blue wall
and you have a reflecting blue light.
(Sometimes pretty in use - in intended way)
Allways in concern of the strenght of the
flash light.

with regards

 

[klownshed]

Oh ...Oh...Oh.... klownshed ???
I just remember two situations from early jobs. The first (very first) in a lab, I was
complete unexperienced to that time and I stood under massive pressure from kolleges because of that.
But I was to that early time stil experienced in photography (today just a little bit more but not much more)
A client had massive red and massive orange/yellow colors to some of his beach pictures from holidays.
A college who was working in the lab to more than 15 years was placed the whole order with color corections to the
3. time. Nobody was able to handle this colors as I decided to ask the cliend :
"Some of the shots were made under a
parasol on the beach - could that be happened?" The answer was : Yes - how can you know this?" I asked about the colors of the parasols-they have been ??
RED and Orange striped the next parasol was YELLOW/ORANGE.
Then I stated: " Sorry Sir here is no way to get normal colors with corrections I apologise much to inconvience you have
but the reason is on your shooting.There is no way to make it unhappen."
MY GREAT HOUR - WITH THE HATE OF ALL COLLEGES WITHIN THE NEXT WEEKS .......
The second situation was on a motor show. A photographer was accompanied
by two pretty young ladys - they were equiped with modernest DSLR's with flashes on camera.
I never saw again such pretty female photographers ! But after a while I doubt a bit to their proffession....
The young ladys uses their flashes all the
time. (The motor show was fully lighted)
I worried about their batterie live.
Then I noticed how their flashes were in use : Indirect against the ceiling of the hall (the height of the ceiling was min.
12meter).....and the color of the ceiling?
Matt Black........?

But notice klownshed : Reflected light has often unexpected amazing properties.The strenght is depending to
the distance in a square-law function,
angel of incidence equals exitangel
AND when you are flashing indirectly normal gray, white, (matt black )
objects you will not have other colors.
Try it and use a flash agains a blue wall
and you have a reflecting blue light.
(Sometimes pretty in use - in intended way)
Allways in concern of the strenght of the
flash light.

with regards

Look up a couple of posts.

 

[trendland]

Look up a couple of posts.

Yes. ..klownshed the answer was given before ( some weeks before)
I just notice this after posting.
Bon chance to your physics studies - better mixing some facts here on APUG
than while examinations....

with regards

 

[trendland]

^FA. says 1/250 is the speed.

learning artificial lighting is on my to-do list, Gerald. to this point i've just said i like the harsh, nan goldin look. suppose i should learn how to do it right before i claim a prefer it wrong.

Sirius, please do ship when you have that finalized. i'd like to go back and re-do this particular shoot again and again for a few reasons.

thanks for the warm welcome and all the suggestions. taking the consensus and going with normal developing. if they turn out alright i'll share a few (after reviewing board policy on nakey-ness, of course).

By the time : Learning artificial lighting !

I see different ways from intention.
(The only simple handicraft such as technical issues is not the dificulty )
I personaly can't handle it in a very greatly way - but I would have to learn it
within some hours if I am forced to use it.
May be I would reach results with complete other methods.
Because the only think wich count in proffession is the result.

Comming back to intention.
A) artificial lighting as an effect.
( popular lighting in use like yours with
overexposures, heavy shadows etc. )
B) artificial lighting as a dokumentation used in scenarios where we want to see
anything but not total darkness
C) artificial lighting as a method to copy
natural light.

Version C is of my inteterest and therefore No lighting is a good
artificial lighting........


with regards

PS : Pls. learn to avoid it. So as here -
pulling an overexposure caused from a flash? It is allways a question of contrasts - not a question of light strengt.

 

[Petraio Prime]

There is no remedy for underexposure or extreme overexposure.

 

[klownshed]

better mixing some facts here on APUG

Facts? On APUG? ;-)

 

[trendland]

There is no remedy for underexposure or extreme overexposure.

Of cause there is a remedy.
1) very good eyes
2) light meter
3) camera exposure automatic
4) heaviest darkroom corrections
5) exhibitions of modern art
( In the chronology of priority -
in reverse order of this chronology it is also a very good way)

with regards

 

[Petraio Prime]

Of cause there is a remedy.
1) very good eyes
2) light meter
3) camera exposure automatic
4) heaviest darkroom corrections
5) exhibitions of modern art
( In the chronology of priority -
in reverse order of this chronology it is also a very good way)

with regards

After the fact, there is no remedy.