I want to break free !

There is an element of OCD in how some photographer create rituals, follow exact procedures, and all of it against rational thought... There is no simple remedy to this.
 
back alley said:
a digital camera is ideal for this...just saying.
Click to expand...

Why?

You can pull an acceptable image out of any DNG that's half-way reasonably exposed.

You can pull an acceptable image out of any halide negative that's half-way reasonably exposed and developed.

Getting a good image out of either is probably about equally difficult, and requires more care in exposure, or more time in the darkroom/post processing, or both.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Why?

You can pull an acceptable image out of any DNG that's half-way reasonably exposed.

You can pull an acceptable image out of any halide negative that's half-way reasonably exposed and developed.
Click to expand...

I took it to mean that with digital we can choose which ISO works best for each scene and expose for each scene using the same camera without having to worry about how it affects the other images on the card.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
For months I couldn't forget some forum members' words about making things simple... People I really admire as photographers and human beings... I just decided I'll give it a try... After many years of shooting with two cameras for direct sun and soft light, I want to see how good my rolls can be if I mix scenes in a roll... I used to do it before I learned to develop and print, but I have never in my life -after handling materials with precision- tried to do it as well as possible...

So I feel I'm a total newbie here... I'd appreciate some members' help: to be able to learn about this, for some months I'll use Tri-X & Rodinal and the Olympus XA for a totally new to me way of shooting... What I find difficult is knowing about two fields: one is which ISOs should I use for harsh and soft light, and the other one is, considering those two ISOs I'll be using in every roll, which development time would be a good starting point for good enough frames of both kinds of light...

I'm feeling great about this and it will be a freedom experiment: I'll keep my camera at f/8 and 8 feet, and all I'll do is change ISO depending on the kind of light... I imagine -when I think of too harsh direct sun frames & too weak shades/overcast frames because of an unique development time for both- it might be necessary to give more exposure (how lower ISO?) to the soft light scenes to make them reach whites, but I don't know if I'm totally wrong at trying to see the whole system this way... Sometimes it seems to me too strange, because what I do with two cameras is just the opposite: more exposure to direct sun scenes with short development, and a lot less exposure to soft light scenes to expand contrast with a lot longer development...

So I'd really thank all of you generous RFF members your kind advice or general comments about this way of shooting...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Juan,

Maybe it's a little language barrier for me here.
But I have no idea what is it that you are trying to break free from.

Are you trying to lean Sunny-16?

Sounds like you're making things more complicated by using something that you're not familiar with.
 
What I would do is rate film at 1 stop below box speed and develop for 20% less than manufactures development time. That would be my starting point. I would use a modern AF film SLR with matrix metering and just shoot away only concentrating on focus point and composition. After a few rolls in varying conditions I would evaluate whether on average I need more or less exposure and whether on average I need more or less development. Test this by making contact prints on grade 3 paper with no more exposure than would be required to produce maximum black through the film base.
 
sanmich said:
I understand the need not to grab two Nikon F5 for two types of lightings, but an XA?
If you want to shoot an XA, why not shoot two of them and be done?

TBS, I shoot all situations with TX, and develop with Emofin which is supposed to retain too high contrasts.
Click to expand...

Hi Michael,

In general I don't use an XA... I use my Hasselblad or 4x5 if it's not street, or my Bessas, Leica or Hexar if it's street, and no doubt I'll continue exposing film and developing for the precise kind of light if that is possible and doesn't go against my shooting, because that's the best way to do it for wet printing. And I'll keep using at least two bodies for that when I do street, because that's the best and fastest way to shoot well sun and shades for the wet printing I prefer.

This thread is about those times I have not planned on shooting, and in those cases I have no cameras with me: but I carry in my pants' pockets an XA always, even when I carry other cameras, because I find it unique for some occasions other cameras just shouldn't be seen, and its tiny size & AE are good enough for street shooting the way I use it, prefocused at 6-8 feet and at f/8.

Why not use two XAs for sun and shades? Very simple... When I've tried that (XA & Stylus Epic, or Leica & Bessa, etc...) it can work when I spend some time shooting into the same kind of light, but it's a big problem when I'm shooting "both sides of the street" or a market with lots of sunny/shady spots all around... I shoot those places (poor workers, social contrasts) constantly... It's not easy -and not visually prudent- to change cameras all the time... Not even XA's... Opening them and closing them and taking them in and out from my pockets can be too much show -apart from missing scenes- if I have that usual constant mix of sun and shades in the middle of lots of humble people... Even cops have taken me with them a couple times for some minutes to ask me why I'm photographing, because in Colombia it's guerrilla people planning where to place bombs who photograph public, crowded places... 🙁

So I started thinking what if I sacrifice a bit of shadow detail in my sunny developments and sacrifice a bit of contrast in my soft light developments and use a middle point time to be able to mix scenes? First I thought it would be just for those "no photography" moments with my XA, but after seeing some results, I see a new horizon: a camera like my Bessas, with 1/2000, with my 40 1.4, set at 1600, with the two ND's I carry (3&6 stops), can do it all literally, from harsh sunlight to dark churches...

There's another fact: when I started to use my HexarAF, I discovered it's an unrivaled tool... It's just necessary those times it's not easy to focus manually because of low light, or when you need clinical precision in low light for selective focus wide open and you must focus close to someone and be very fast and totally silent... So I started to carry the HexAF no matter if I was carrying other two cameras for sun and shades... Then I found myself carrying three cameras as my usual tools all the time: I know -from experience- that's the best way, but I started to think could I keep the HexAF for those moments (that camera simply can't be replaced) and try to get some good results from just one camera for sun and shades? That way, I'd just keep the HexAF in a very small non photographic bag, hidden all the time, and my usual camera down in my hand for most of my shots... And this way I can carry just two cameras in total, but use just one most of the time and be really fast...

Then, for a quick snaps test, the XA was perfect because all I had to do was look for scenes including a complete, wide tonal range with whites, and shoot changing the ISO setting only... The negatives I got, linked in the other thread, apart from being OK for scanning, look fine for wet printing: I didn't get too weak soft light scenes, nor too contrasty sunny scenes... I don't have enlarger here with me in Colombia, but certainly those negatives look like the try was worth it... Both kinds of light did reach whites! I was wondering how I should vary ISO when going from sun to shades, and I was expecting I would need to use a much lower ISO for soft light to get real whites. I was wrong. And guess what I found about a good ISO for that middle point development... Box speed! Hehehe... Tom A's thread about basics really made me think for some weeks... I like precision, and I guess most of us like it, but isn't it a bit more important to act simple and be able to get the shot? 😛 I'm sure all these things about the ways we face situations and people, and the ways -the different ways- we use gear, mean a lot more to our photography than totally precise exposure and development or using a top quality lens with its highest tripod/test sharpness we won't even be able to see on the images because we're doing handheld street photography...

So, Michael, for my real shooting I just came down from three to two good cameras, and one of them remains the HexAF because it just can't be replaced by any other one. And for my non-shooting days, a single XA will save me, when I see something, in the fastest possible way for both kinds of light. I feel relaxed.

Cheers,

Juan
 
shadowfox said:
Juan,

Maybe it's a little language barrier for me here.
But I have no idea what is it that you are trying to break free from.

Are you trying to lean Sunny-16?

Sounds like you're making things more complicated by using something that you're not familiar with.
Click to expand...

Hi Will,

I broke free from things that were not necessary to get the shots, and I broke free from things that could have made it harder to get the shots.

Once again, I don't find I can be true at saying one single camera is the best tool to shoot everything. And either, one single way to use a camera is the best way for every situation. Maybe it's a lighter way, or a way to think less, and we all can do lots of shots with one camera (it's easy knowing the light and be there to shoot), but some real vanishing moments will be gone unless we're ready for them, and getting a shot because we were prepared with one camera, doesn't mean at all we'll quickly be able get another shot in a completely different situation, IMO.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Stuart John said:
What I would do is rate film at 1 stop below box speed and develop for 20% less than manufactures development time. That would be my starting point. I would use a modern AF film SLR with matrix metering and just shoot away only concentrating on focus point and composition. After a few rolls in varying conditions I would evaluate whether on average I need more or less exposure and whether on average I need more or less development. Test this by making contact prints on grade 3 paper with no more exposure than would be required to produce maximum black through the film base.
Click to expand...

Right.

We agree it's basically about placing both kinds of scenes inside film's tonal range, and then be able to print as well as possible... What surprised me was finding how easy it is, and especially how capable film is of holding both kinds of scenes with the same development... My memories from my first rolls of B&W 25 years ago, the latest times I used to mix scenes, were really uneven frames... All I can imagine now about it is, it was not a problem about mixing scenes or development, but about my exposure skills back then...

Cheers,

Juan
 
My way is to do basically what Stuart John does. But like I said give a little higher EI to flat scenes. Unless you are going to treat your negatives with Selenium or some other solution after development, there are only three ways to increase negative contrast: develop longer, agitate more, or raise the EI. The first two are out for roll film (as a selective control), the last give flat scenes more contrast. If you don't want to change your ISO, print or PS for more contrast with these flat scenes.
 
Hi John,

Why would in your opinion a scene reach higher contrast on negatives if with the same development time and agitation, you just meter at a higher ISO, giving it less exposure?

I tend to imagine with such underexposure (any amount) highest values on negative will be even a bit lower, and I guess -in the opposite extreme of tonal range- the lowest values remain exactly that low: the lowest possible ones, base+fog, producing blacks on prints... Then, as blacks remain blacks, and highest values (many times not even whites on prints because there were no whites in the scene) show darker grays as highlights because of the slight underexposure, how could contrast be higher? With simple underexposure, contrast should be lower...

If you shoot flat scenes at a higher ISO, and then expand them with a longer development, that's different (pushing) and I agree contrast becomes higher then... But why do you talk about higher contrast just by metering at higher ISO giving negatives less light?

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Juan,

I think there are two aspect to this: shooting and printing. I know it is traditional to think that you should 'get everything right in camera and in development' making life easy for printing, but while that might work for LF and landscape work, it does not work nearly so well for street. Shooting documentary forced me into simpler shooting habits and so forced me to become a much better printer because of the range of negatives I ended up with. I still believe this is the right way to go for this application as I don't generally have the time to faff about while shooting.

Personally, and as a rough rule, I expose for shadows and don't care in the slightest what happens to highlights. by expose I mean determine where I want the shadows to fall on the film scale. if I know I have dealt with some extremely contrasty scenes on a roll (which has some lower contrast scenes) I will decide where I want to compromise and then put the work in on the darkroom on taming the hot negatives and getting a full range out of the flatter ones.

For TriX with Xtol 1+2, I tend to shoot with my Leica at EI320 in dead flat light, 250 in soft/moderately contrasty light and 200 in really hard edged light, always pointing down to take readings to avoid sky. This is when I cannot take a specific reading from the shadows. When I can do this, I use 320 and decide where to place the shadows. The rest is experience shooting the same way and seeing the negs over the years. I make some mistakes, but when the are overexposed I don't sweat as the range of film is astonishing and the only real issue is your patience in the darkroom and skill. The Neg will be fine....

I tend to push either for additional speed or to expand. When shooting in dead flat light where I want to create shadows that aren't there (or barely) I will raise the film speed (so underexpose) and increase development. I usually add 25% or so and get a nicely expanded neg. Its not scientific. I don't use the fixed methodical numbers lots of people use, but it works for me.

Enjoy it. Its hugely liberating. It took me a while to get here after shooting LF and my shooting has improved immensely because I spend more time looking at things rather than filling my mind with too many technical considerations.
 
Turtle said:
I expose for shadows and don't care in the slightest what happens to highlights.
Click to expand...

I never care about highlights either: I never meter several points in a scene... Never in any format for any kind of photography, because I shoot B&W as slide film: my times and ISO's are ready for producing exact whites in every kind of light...

BUT: we both DO care about highlights, because we pick a development time... 🙂

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi John,


If you shoot flat scenes at a higher ISO, and then expand them with a longer development, that's different (pushing) and I agree contrast becomes higher then... But why do you talk about higher contrast just by metering at higher ISO giving negatives less light?

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

If you shoot at a higher EI and develop longer; you are pushing. And you get a high contrast result. If you just raise the EI and develop normally you will also get a high contrast result (maybe not as much). I choose to raise the EI for flat scenes and develop with the rest of the roll which are sunny 16 or close.

You can test this by shooting TriX at your normal EI and put a few frames in at 1200 or 1600. Develop for your normal TriX EI and those (high EI) scenes will be high in contrast. That is all I'm doing but to a much less extreme degree with flat scenes.
 
Last edited:
Develop for high contrast light. Use higher contrast paper for flat scenes.

Use 1/2 normal film speed, cut development 20% and high and normal will print fine. Use higher contrast paper for flat light.
 
Ronald M said:
Develop for high contrast light. Use higher contrast paper for flat scenes.

Use 1/2 normal film speed, cut development 20% and high and normal will print fine. Use higher contrast paper for flat light.
Click to expand...

Exactly (finally someone that has figured it out), but in my way just raise the EI by 2/3 or 3/3s of a stop (develop normally and all the other stuff I've said) and you will have a good scanning negative. That is if you scan, if you print you will see from my past posts; I do like you.
 
Last edited:
Moriturii said:
How does a negative that is particularly good for scanning differ from one that is particularly good for wet printing?
Click to expand...

Develop negatives, scan them, then decide what works for you. Or develop negatives and then print and scan and decide for yourself which you like the best. If there is no difference; fine. If there is; then decide which process you will choose to champion.
 
Moriturii's question I find confusing. A good negative is a good negative. It should print well with little or no dodging or burning, and it should also scan equally well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom