Trying to find best personal exposure T-MAX, can you help me decide which one it is?

[moodlover]

I shoot portraits in a studio using a Mamiya RZ67 + single strobe setup. Before my next shoot, I wanted to find out what power my strobe should be set up to yield the highest quality negative/exposure I can get. Please see my results here:

T-MAX 400, D-76 1:1 developed normally at 10m15s, TF-4 fixer, lens aperture f/2.8 for all shots (only strobe power is increasing)
Click to view: http://i.imgur.com/AU0nJHz.jpg

The Sekonic L-358 metered reading is f/2.8 at ISO400 and 1/400s. I feel as if I'm getting the most detail and contrast at f/8, while f/11 is getting washed out. However, because f/8 is +3 stops over the metered reading I'm not sure if my results are normal, and if you guys think that is the best exposure for me? I am also unsure if it would be okay to leave the light at f/8 when switching over to Portra 400. Thoughts?

 

[removed account4]

i'd just use box speed tmax films are finicky enough
and tmy HATES flash ( blocks up ) ///

good luck with your portrait gig

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use box speed too. A personal exposure index is personal so how can someone else tell you what it is?

 

[moodlover]

i'd just use box speed tmax films are finicky enough
and tmy HATES flash ( blocks up ) ///

good luck with your portrait gig

I use box speed too. A personal exposure index is personal so how can someone else tell you what it is?

...why? Did you guys look at the results? The first metered exposure of 0 IS box speed, and theres no shadow detail. Sure it's personal but I know there are some good opinions here on what a negative should look like in terms of exposure and retaining detail/clarity.

Update: also no fill light, thats probably why theres no shadow detail (at 1/400 shutter speed of the broken RZ67 it kills all ambiance).

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

So you kept the aperture fixed at f2.8 and simply dialed up the power on the strobe one stop per exposure? So, the f4, f5.6 etc is what you SHOULD have exposed it as, correct?

If you are planning on making silver prints you need to make silver proofs and not scans.

If you are scanning then I would just pick the one you like the best in terms of the overall tonality. I like the +1 version, which would be ISO 200. I'm honestly shocked that you could do the +4 (ISO 25) and still get anything decent.

The development time you have is a nice safety zone. Your getting workable negatives anywhere from 100-400 ISO. Especially with portraiture and the subject changing positions, you can easily vary 1/2 stop between exposures, so using ISO 200 as your film speed will give you some wiggle room both over and under.

FWIW I generally rate TMY around 250 and develop in Barry Thornton's two bath with a similar strategy in mind. Almost always get a neg that fits nicely on grades 2-3.5. If you look on my site, all of my Rodeo portraiture was with TMY. It's a beautiful portrait film.

 

[Bill Burk]

Looks like you start to see detail in the distant background as you hit the scene with more light.

 

[ic-racer]

Need scans of the negatives.

 

[moodlover]

So you kept the aperture fixed at f2.8 and simply dialed up the power on the strobe one stop per exposure? So, the f4, f5.6 etc is what you SHOULD have exposed it as, correct?

Yes that's exactly what I did because I shoot at only aperture f2.8 for shallow depth of field, so I dialed up the strobe 1 stop per exposure. However, for whatever reason, the first frame which is the metered reading doesn't yield great shadow detail.

If you are planning on making silver prints you need to make silver proofs and not scans.

If you are scanning then I would just pick the one you like the best in terms of the overall tonality. I like the +1 version, which would be ISO 200. I'm honestly shocked that you could do the +4 (ISO 25) and still get anything decent.

The development time you have is a nice safety zone. Your getting workable negatives anywhere from 100-400 ISO. Especially with portraiture and the subject changing positions, you can easily vary 1/2 stop between exposures, so using ISO 200 as your film speed will give you some wiggle room both over and under.

FWIW I generally rate TMY around 250 and develop in Barry Thornton's two bath with a similar strategy in mind. Almost always get a neg that fits nicely on grades 2-3.5. If you look on my site, all of my Rodeo portraiture was with TMY. It's a beautiful portrait film.

No prints, just scanning since my presentation medium is internet. Do you seriously think the +1 version is the best, considering it lacks shadow detail? I'm also shocked that I could do +4 also without a problem, I think I could easily go +5 or +6 because scanning was a breeze.

What do you mean by nice safety zone? I literally just looked up the TMY-2 datasheet and it says standard hand tank processing time is 10m15s so I follow that and it worked lovely. A lot of people seem to think TMAX is "finnicky" but I'm not sure why they say that, since I'm getting quite a lot of flexibility from it (unless my untrained eye is wrong).

Looks like you start to see detail in the distant background as you hit the scene with more light.

Exactly my point, which is at +2 minimum, and then +3 seems to be a nice medium. Hence me wondering why I would shoot at box speed which for whatever reason isn't giving a decent exposure.

Need scans of the negatives.

They're in the first post, please look here: http://i.imgur.com/AU0nJHz.jpg

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I would suspect that, if you are getting an easy scan off a neg exposed at ISO 25, you are under-developing the negatives quite a bit, which is okay since scanning doesn't require much in the way of density.

If you are getting the results you want with that technique, I wouldn't worry about it. Just pick one and get to work.

 

[MattKing]

You are using flash as your light source, yet you are quoting a shutter speed in your meter reading. That doesn't make sense.

Unless you are balancing ambient and flash, any meter reading needs only reference the film speed and the aperture.

Did you use the flash meter in incident mode or in reflected mode?

In either case, if your light source is a single flash, your shadow detail will be determined by the light that actually reaches those shadows, which won't usually be read by your flash meter, unless you take a specific, incident meter reading there. Is that what you used?

 

[RobC]

I'd slect 0 or +1, probably 0. It gives most 3 dimensional look and definition in main subject. Also shows fan blades the best.

I don't understand what you're saying. You claim always f2.8 then say you are using other apertures. It can't be both so which is it.

 

[moodlover]

I would suspect that, if you are getting an easy scan off a neg exposed at ISO 25, you are under-developing the negatives quite a bit, which is okay since scanning doesn't require much in the way of density.

If you are getting the results you want with that technique, I wouldn't worry about it. Just pick one and get to work.

I don't think I'm under-developing at all if I'm using the full 10m15s recommended in the datasheet. Unless you mean my temperature is off (i.e. cooler chemistry) but I'm pretty sure my thermometer is accurate since I calibrated it to 32F using crushed ice.

You are using flash as your light source, yet you are quoting a shutter speed in your meter reading. That doesn't make sense.

Unless you are balancing ambient and flash, any meter reading needs only reference the film speed and the aperture.

Did you use the flash meter in incident mode or in reflected mode?

In either case, if your light source is a single flash, your shadow detail will be determined by the light that actually reaches those shadows, which won't usually be read by your flash meter, unless you take a specific, incident meter reading there. Is that what you used?

What do you mean quoting shutter speed? Basically my RZ67 is broken and can only shoot in emergency mode which only allows a shutter speed of 1/400. Just stating it because its such a high speed it kills ambient fill completely (not that there was any to begin with, studio was pretty dark with just the strobe on). Flash meter is in incident mode, only read for the highlights, not the shadows. Only one thing changes in this test: flash power.

 

[moodlover]

I'd slect 0 or +1, probably 0. It gives most 3 dimensional look and definition in main subject.

I don't understand what you're saying. You claim always f2.8 then say you are using other apertures. It can't be both so which is it.

Basically:

1. The lens is fixed at f2.8 aperture
2. The increasing f-stops you see is FLASH POWER, so f/11 means f/11 flash power, not lens aperture

This is why the exposure is increasing. Sorry for the confusion folks, I thought I made it as clear as I could. Exposure is increasing because flash power is being increased 1 stop per frame, that is what the changing f-stops are in the first post. Everything else from lens aperture, shutter speed and even the scan settings from frame-to-frame are identical.

 

[removed account4]

...why? Did you guys look at the results? The first metered exposure of 0 IS box speed, and theres no shadow detail. Sure it's personal but I know there are some good opinions here on what a negative should look like in terms of exposure and retaining detail/clarity.

Update: also no fill light, thats probably why theres no shadow detail (at 1/400 shutter speed of the broken RZ67 it kills all ambiance).

hi

i did look at the results and it is hard to tell from negative scans
what the film actually looks like.
i used to do newspaper work and shot tmy for ambient light stuff
and tmx for any sort of flash work i had to do. i processed my film
in sprint film developer ( think ID-11 or D76 but a little different )
the reason i suggest box speed with your flash is because the film
is rated by KODAK at 400. use what they rate it at, and adjust your flash
to do what you need it to do. light the subject not the background, (unless the background is part of the subject )
yeah i know i should take my own advice when i used tmy, but i blended my flash into my ambient light and it STILL blocked my highlights ...

figure out what your ambient light is, and use your flash as a fill, not as your key light
or use a different film ( tri x has a huge range and it doesn't block up, it might be a good choice ).
TMY is great stuff but like all film, it has its positives and negatives and not liking hot strobe is a negative ...
so, if you NEED to use TMY and NEED to use your strobe, choke your strobe back.
use the film at box speed for your tests and see how it works out. as stated by others
if you are scanning your film, the scanner doesn't need a ton of density, so don't worry about blasting your flash.


good luck !
john

 

[moodlover]

i used to do newspaper work and shot tmy for ambient light stuff
and tmx for any sort of flash work i had to do. i processed my film
in sprint film developer ( think ID-11 or D76 but a little different )
the reason i suggest box speed with your flash is because the film
is rated by KODAK at 400. use what they rate it at, and adjust your flash
to do what you need it to do. light the subject not the background, (unless the background is part of the subject )
yeah i know i should take my own advice when i used tmy, but i blended my flash into my ambient light and it STILL blocked my highlights ...

figure out what your ambient light is, and use your flash as a fill, not as your key light
or use a different film ( tri x has a huge range and it doesn't block up, it might be a good choice ).
TMY is great stuff but like all film, it has its positives and negatives and not liking hot strobe is a negative ...
so, if you NEED to use TMY and NEED to use your strobe, choke your strobe back.
use the film at box speed for your tests and see how it works out. as stated by others
if you are scanning your film, the scanner doesn't need a ton of density, so don't worry about blasting your flash.


good luck !
john

Thanks for your interesting response, here are some points I'd like to make for you:

1. The actual negative film looks near perfect, not overly dense and not overly thin. The first frame has clear film where the darkest parts of the photo is and around +2 the film is no longer clear but very subtle detail, at the same time I can read print through the dark parts of the negative (highlights). Really good negative.
2. I know you say use box speed but as you can clearly see in the first frame 0, box speed doesn't give me sufficient shadow detail
3. I'm not sure why you get blocked highlights, since even at +4 you can see I have full detail in my highlights (confirmed with scan). The only time I've ever gotten poor highlights is overexposing + overdeveloping, other than that you should not be having blocked highlights and that has little to do with flash vs ambient, light is light to the film at the end of the day.
4. I am in a dark studio with no windows or practical lighting, so there is no ambient light. The only light is flash, so it has to be the key light on my subject (not sure why you're recommending flash as fill, that wouldn't give me any dimensionality).
5. I have no need to switch to Tri-X when my T-MAX results are almost perfect, the highlights are not blocked up so I'm confused at this recommendation? It's really the shadow's I'm worried about, the highlights are fine!
6. That's the second time someone has said TMAX doesn't like strobes, where is this coming from? I've had beautiful results with TMAX + strobes
7. Again, the first frame of this test IS my box speed test, what other test is there?! That frame alone is box speed, im confused as to why I should bring the strobe down if I clearly see that box speed isn't looking great?

 

[MattKing]

This section from your initial post is what confused me: The Sekonic L-358 metered reading is f/2.8 at ISO400 and 1/400s"

It is the reference to "1/400s" in the metering information that makes it look like you were metering ambient light, rather than flash.

You clarified that you used the meter as a flash meter, in incident mode. If you took one reading only, than essentially you only metered for those portions of your subject that were illuminated directly by your flash source. Your shadows will have received a different amount of light, so the shadow illumination won't have been adequately measured by your meter.

You need to first adjust your light source and use multiple readings to adjust the lighting ratio. Only when you have the ratio set to your liking will you be able to evaluate your results based on shadow detail.

The set of scans that you included in your initial post are useful for evaluating highlight rendition. But unless you metered the shadow illumination, you cannot get much information from them about your shadow exposure.

If you had metered both the shadow illumination and the highlight illumination, we might also be able to evaluate your development, because changing development primarily changes contrast, not exposure.

Hope this helps.

 

[RobC]

what detail you require in the shadows is a subjective decision. The light fall off from the flash will vary from subject to subject depending on distance. So all we can do is say we prefer one image over another. Only you can make an assessment that if all your images tend to have too little shdow detail for your taste then you need to adjust something. Whether thats shutter speed, flash output or flash distance is upto you.

 

[moodlover]

This section from your initial post is what confused me: The Sekonic L-358 metered reading is f/2.8 at ISO400 and 1/400s"

It is the reference to "1/400s" in the metering information that makes it look like you were metering ambient light, rather than flash.

You clarified that you used the meter as a flash meter, in incident mode. If you took one reading only, than essentially you only metered for those portions of your subject that were illuminated directly by your flash source. Your shadows will have received a different amount of light, so the shadow illumination won't have been adequately measured by your meter.

You need to first adjust your light source and use multiple readings to adjust the lighting ratio. Only when you have the ratio set to your liking will you be able to evaluate your results based on shadow detail.

The set of scans that you included in your initial post are useful for evaluating highlight rendition. But unless you metered the shadow illumination, you cannot get much information from them about your shadow exposure.

If you had metered both the shadow illumination and the highlight illumination, we might also be able to evaluate your development, because changing development primarily changes contrast, not exposure.

Hope this helps.

Ahh I see, I apologize for the confusion. Yes the 1/400s shutter speed was not a reading, but a constant because my RZ67 forces me to use that speed in its leaf shutter lens at the moment until I get it fixed. Definitely not measuring ambient, but flash directly falling on subject. What you're saying about metering highlights vs shadows makes perfect sense and explains why my test lacks shadow detail. Helped a lot, thanks.

what detail you require in the shadows is a subjective decision. The light fall off from the flash will vary from subject to subject depending on distance. So all we can do is say we prefer one image over another. Only you can make an assessment that if all your images tend to have too little shdow detail for your taste then you need to adjust something. Whether thats shutter speed, flash output or flash distance is upto you.

You're absolutely right about that. I guess I was looking for someone to say that a certain frame/exposure had the best flash power for getting the most detail and range without sacrificing dimensionality.

 

[RobC]

you need to learn to read your modelling lights if you have them. That's what they're for, so you can see what the lighting will look like. The contrast between shadows and whats in direct light. i.e. the lighting ratios between your subject, its dark side and background etc.

 

[removed account4]

it is impossible to see what your film looks like
from inverted scans.

if your negatives look good use whatever negatives you like

good luck !

 

[Ozxplorer]

Hi... I don't think there is much wrong with the standard exposure - it is so easy to become sidetracked considering more technicalities that necessary in this case the K.I.S.S. principle applies.

If you are looking for more detail in the shadow areas and, without knowing your level of photographic experience and ability, I suggest your lighting technique needs some attention... It is at the capture stage (seemingly a forgotten art these days) when you have the most control over the final outcome not the post capture process. Your considerations should be - your light, the size and type of reflector used and, just as importantly, the distance (light to subject). By managing you capture contrast ratios (yes, even using 1 light source) you are assured of detail where needed. The processing adds a "tweak" but is not necessarily the only method by which the contrast ratio is controlled. Much is written about the "inverse square law" as it is applied to lighting... Have a look here - this is but one of many sites I found with some information on the subject http://www.portraitlighting.net/index.htm

I hope this opens new and as yet unexplored options plus avenues for ongoing photographic accomplishment...Take care...

 

[Ozxplorer]

Sorry guys... something wrong with the link try http://www.portraitlighting.net/index.htm

 

[markbarendt]

Your white gray black cards tell the story, they are supposed to be white gray & black.

Only the first shot gets the black card black. That's at box speed right? That's the only shot that has close to the "right" contrast rate. It is the only combination you've shown that will keep black hair and clothing black.

That isn't because of the change in camera exposure.

The displayed shots have all been manipulated in post, that's obvious because the name plate on the fan has roughly the same luminance in each shot but the shadows change dramatically.

Surely adding more camera exposure adds more shadow detail to a negative, that doesn't mean you can straight print those shadow details and still get the subjects hair black at the same time.

 

[ic-racer]

They're in the first post, please look here: http://i.imgur.com/AU0nJHz.jpg

Those look like prints to me. On a computer monitor a negative would show white in the dark areas. Adequate exposure of a scene gives faint density in the shadows. You can determine this by looking at the negative yourself or posting a picture of the negative.

 

[Jim Noel]

You need to do your own testing.