Maybe my light meter is getting overwhelmed by the snow ?
I get the impression xtol might not be the best developer for this film under these lighting conditions, what developer are you using ?
Another idea that popped into my mind as I wrote this, is: if possible, why not just use flash? Of course, it doesn't work for a wide expanse of landscape, but if you're shooting something at close range, adding some fill-in flash (especially if it's offset from your camera) could give you better texture detail.
Today's a pretty dull day in the Montréal region, so I went out in the backyard and shot a test roll. Here's my logic:
- In 120, I really like HP5+ in DK-50 1+1. The developer gives me sharp images with brilliant highlights, while the film maintains good shadow details.
- My normal regimen in to expose at EI 250, and develop for 5:45. I have a couple of images of this combo in my gallery.
- Today, I set my spot meter at EI 400 so that the shadows would receive less exposure.
- I am also going to develop for 7 mins, which is 20% more time than my usual 5:45.
- When I metered, I tried to place snow as high as I could (Zone VI or VII). That's one to two stops above the meter's reading when pointed at the snow. I also checked my exposure by measuring other items in the yard (fence, table, etc.)
- I bracketed exposures, and made two series: one without a filter, and one with an orange filter (3x factor).
That's about as much as I can do in-camera. In the darkroom, I should have latitude to dodge and burn specific areas to get the detail and the tones where I want them.
Another idea that popped into my mind as I wrote this, is: if possible, why not just use flash? Of course, it doesn't work for a wide expanse of landscape, but if you're shooting something at close range, adding some fill-in flash (especially if it's offset from your camera) could give you better texture detail.
I have been lurking on the sideline and while I think the neg is a little over exposed, the lack of contrast is due to lighting.
The scene appears to be cloudy and so has very flat lighting (very little or no shadow).
Yes it's definately overexposed and the scene is very flat. I was hoping "expansion" would help overcome this and stretch out the tonal range.
Hi Michel,
I didn't realize you were also in Montreal. Thanks for doing this! I got the tmax 100 and tmax developer yesterday - I should be able to get out Saturday and shoot a few test rolls
Flash really isn't an option - my camera has a rotating drum and records a field of view of 146degrees.
Paul
I would say that the orange filter seems to have been the most effective tool
I don't know where I'm going to find a yellow filter for that Noblex...
Pooh, pooh, pidooh: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/making-noblex-filters.110188/
Otherwise I suppose you could use a gel, either in front of the camera or behind the lens.
For 'expansion' to work you need to slightly underexpose as well as boosting processing - maybe EI 125-160 at most to begin with.
Nice! I didn't have any spare small yellow filters l but I had a look on eBay and found one of those Noblex gel filter holders.
We have lots of snow today so perfect conditions for testing the tmax film
Can you post some comparison shots of your negatives ?
Photrio, the Forum that Answers Itself, since 2003!
I'll see if I can try to rephotograph the negatives on a light table (don't have scanner).
Yep, quite a lot of snow to test, and the light is nicer than the previous days. It's brighter, less grey.
I think I'm losing my mind. I found this in my parts box today - yellow AND orange
It must be set first depict a very difficult subject. I think so far you did everything right. Under exposing and over developing will not decrease decrease the grain. Using a different developer might but Xtol is pretty good for what you're trying to do. In conclusion, I think you may have reached the limit of what the materials chosen able to do for the similar you have picked. Let's see you example of your photographs to see what is really that bad as he said!I like shooting outside landscapes on snowy overcast days (snowy scenes - not while it's actually snowing) with close to white-out conditions. My negatives always come out very flat, and the snow has no detail and is terribly grainy. I use Ilford delta 100 (exposed at 80) and processed in xtol 1:1 for 9 minutes at 20C- which gives me fantastic negatives in all other conditions.
Ideally i'de like to to capture the detail in the snow (texture) as well as features like footprints, tiretracks... With as little grain as possible.
Would I be better off underexposing and overdevelopping? And if so by how much? N-1, N-2 ? I use and incident light meter set at 80 for all my readings - which is probably worsening the situation.
It must be set first depict a very difficult subject. I think so far you did everything right. Under exposing and over developing will not decrease decrease the grain. Using a different developer might but Xtol is pretty good for what you're trying to do. In conclusion, I think you may have reached the limit of what the materials chosen able to do for the similar you have picked. Let's see you example of your photographs to see what is really that bad as he said!I like shooting outside landscapes on snowy overcast days (snowy scenes - not while it's actually snowing) with close to white-out conditions. My negatives always come out very flat, and the snow has no detail and is terribly grainy. I use Ilford delta 100 (exposed at 80) and processed in xtol 1:1 for 9 minutes at 20C- which gives me fantastic negatives in all other conditions.
Ideally i'de like to to capture the detail in the snow (texture) as well as features like footprints, tiretracks... With as little grain as possible.
Would I be better off underexposing and overdevelopping? And if so by how much? N-1, N-2 ? I use and incident light meter set at 80 for all my readings - which is probably worsening the situation.
D'oh indeed. Here's a quick shot of the negatives. On the left, no filter; on the right, orange filter.
The difference I see is with the texture of the snow, lower-right of the image.
On the left one it's near-featureless; on the right one, you can see a bit better the little pellets of snow on the ground. My picnic table is blue, so it appears a bit darker with the orange filter. Otherwise, the exposure is the same between the two (i.e. I compensated for the orange filter by 1.5 stop relative to the first one).
All the usual caveats about reproduction apply, but I can confirm on the light table that there is better tone separation with the filter.
It must be set first depict a very difficult subject. I think so far you did everything right. Under exposing and over developing will not decrease decrease the grain. Using a different developer might but Xtol is pretty good for what you're trying to do. In conclusion, I think you may have reached the limit of what the materials chosen able to do for the similar you have picked. Let's see you example of your photographs to see what is really that bad as he said!
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?