B&W Portrait Question
JBurke4269
and why? My handheld flashmeter readings were used but b&w portraits seem a
little overexposed in the highlights but yet for color reversal (Portra 160) as
well as transparency(Velvia) my meter seems right on.
Please advise!!!
Logan McMinn
processing, and if you're not careful, the highlights can easily block up. If the
shadows show good detail and the negatives don't seem to be overly dense, then you
may want to adjust your processing rather than the exposure.
WReid17537
>From: jburk...@aol.com (JBurke4269)
>Date: 2/25/00 4:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000225163511...@ng-ft1.aol.com>
>
>
>Is it a common practice to underexpose b&w film (T-Max 100(120)) a half stop
>and why
Definitely NOT!
zeitgeist
white expos are not, then the culperate is the lab. B&W
labs are notorious for inconsistant processing. Color must
be done by machine for consistency and there is basically
only one way. B&W has hundreds of variations, chemical and
methodic. Labs have a tendency to over develope too. And
from listening to other top gun pros talk, the more high
falutin the lab, you know, snooty attitude by the art
institute graduate with the goatee, high prices the less
consistent they are. The cheap lab that out and out fries
the film in hot chems at least is consistent about it...
JBurke4269 wrote:
>
> Is it a common practice to underexpose b&w film (T-Max 100(120)) a half stop
Dan Moore
<38B7027C...@mail.idt.net>:
>If I recall correctly, T-Max has a reputation of being pretty demanding
>of processing, and if you're not careful, the highlights can easily
>block up. If the shadows show good detail and the negatives don't seem
>to be overly dense, then you may want to adjust your processing rather
>than the exposure.
>
>JBurke4269 wrote:
>
>> Is it a common practice to underexpose b&w film (T-Max 100(120)) a
>> half stop and why? My handheld flashmeter readings were used but b&w
>> portraits seem a little overexposed in the highlights but yet for
>> color reversal (Portra 160) as well as transparency(Velvia) my meter
>> seems right on. Please advise!!!
>
>
I agree, it's probably due to over-processing.....which is what you usually
get when you follow the reccommended times.....
digital photo guy
shadows and develop for the highlights. If you tell your lab,
they should be able to accomodate you. I prefer to do my own
processing and printing. Although I don't do much B&W work
anymore I have over eighteen years of experience. You may want
to process your own film or find a better lab. You can see some
of my current work at my website www.fstop.net.
In article <38B7027C...@mail.idt.net>, Logan McMinn
<mcm...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>If I recall correctly, T-Max has a reputation of being pretty
demanding of
>processing, and if you're not careful, the highlights can
easily block up. If the
>shadows show good detail and the negatives don't seem to be
overly dense, then you
>may want to adjust your processing rather than the exposure.
>
>JBurke4269 wrote:
>
>> Is it a common practice to underexpose b&w film (T-Max 100
(120)) a half stop
>> and why? My handheld flashmeter readings were used but b&w
portraits seem a
>> little overexposed in the highlights but yet for color
reversal (Portra 160) as
>> well as transparency(Velvia) my meter seems right on.
>> Please advise!!!
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Studio II
shadows and develop for the highlights is way outdated. And does not apply to
todays films, processing or digital. Let me ask you something..............HOW
MANY IMAGES HAVE YOU TAKEN TO PRESS? Not many if that is the way you are
shooting. You know why, cause your blacks will not hold any detail and neither
will your highlights.
ERic
SPECTRUM
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:30:29 -0500, in rec.photo.technique.people you
wrote:
>If I recall correctly, T-Max has a reputation of being pretty demanding of
>processing, and if you're not careful, the highlights can easily block up.
Just to correct this little oversight, T-Max films do not
"block up" in the highlights the way that older films do. in fact
their characteristic curve is straight off the map of most usable
densities up to about 4.0 d . This means that the highlights develop
proportionately instead of with the upswept curves of films such as
Plus-X and Tri-X.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Photographer, webmaster and P/T darkroom wizard !
WORLD FIELD PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOC.
Think BIG ! Really BIG !
TravGlen
2/3 stop and develop normally. The reason is thus: More light in printing
produces darker tones, less light produces light tones. So shadow density is
actually minimal on a b&w neg, allowing more light to reach the print paper.
Film processing acutually washes away all silver that has not been subjected
to the chemical process that occurs under exposure to light. If you slightly
overexpose b&w film, you will insure that some shadow silver grains get some
light. Since light tones has the most density, less light will reach the
print paper. So, by dodging and burning, it is possible to produce a print
that has a wider latitude than normal. And this, of course, is the basis of
the zone system.
"JBurke4269" <jburk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000225163511...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> Is it a common practice to underexpose b&w film (T-Max 100(120)) a half
flory...@mindspring.com
over 33 years and started out for 4 years from 1966 to 1970 doing strictly
B&W including 4"X5" & 8"X10" sheet films . I own a studio & am certified .
Now for a sugestion . Use Plus- X & Tri-X kodak films . T-Max is junk ...
worst film Kodak ever came up with . I am Kodak Promise of Excellence & use
strictly Kodak products but would give away or throw away T-Max film . The
contrast is very lacking . Plus-X is the best . If they still made
Panatomic-X ... that was an incredible film . I also agree with starting to
develope your own film for best results . And , exposing for the shadows
does not mean setting your aperature exactly at what the meter says when
reading the shadows ! You meter the highlight area of a scene and the shadow
areas . Then , set your aperature accordingly in between . Best time of day
is the "sweet light " time of day ... dawn and dusk . Your lighting range
becomes too much for film to handle in the middle of the day . Early or late
the range is much less harsh and your film can handle it better . Experiment
.. expose a roll of film and start by setting your aperature at exactly what
your meter says for deepest shadow areas . Then bracket all the way to what
your meter says to use for the sky which should be the brightest . Mark in a
notebook each exposure for each frame .Have a contact sheet done ... NOT
INDIVIDUAL PRINTS ! This will show you excatly how the film saw the scene
and lab techs will not try to adjust . Then , pick out what looks like the
best exposure . Now check your notes to see where the meter was set . Good
luck ;
D. Craig Flory flory...@mindspring.com
TravGlen
> does not mean setting your aperature exactly at what the meter says when
> reading the shadows ! You meter the highlight area of a scene and the
shadow
> areas . Then , set your aperature accordingly in between .
This is exactly what you don't do, (set an "average" exposure.) You don't
sound as if you do darkroom work or understand b&w film density. At any rate
from an "average" exposure add 1/3 to 1 stop to overexpose and meter for the
shadows. The idea is to build negative density in the shadow area of the neg
since the highlight area will have all the density it needs no matter what
you do.
TravGlen
"straight" print. Anyone who does b&w darkroom work will tell you that. I
would venture that 90% of Ansel Adams prints would look like crap if they
were straight prints. The idea is to "stretch" the tonality of the print by
dodging and burning highlights and shadows. Read Ansel Adams three books to
learn the art of black & white.