alexz
Well-known
Phew.......
As I mentioned earlier in my thread dealing with HC-110 dill. H - I intended to conduct a ring-around test to establish the best rocessing chain containing:
Tri-X in HC-110 dill. H at 20 deg. C, Normal development time to be considered 13 min. (twice as the one good for dill. B), destined for scanning by Nikon LS-40 film scanner in Mono, Grayscale mode, NikonScan software, 12 bit output to my particular CRT Samsung SyncMaster 997M monitor (calibrated). Agitation - first 30 second, then twice each subsequent minute (two upside down-up turns).
I realize more solid testing approach should direct to wet printing, but this is out of my reach and I need to tune my process to my particular flow.
Shot a roll of Tri-X of reasonably high contrast scene with contrast swing of 6-6.5 stops, lens 'Cron 50mm/2 (current) on M6, constant shutter speed of 1000, the film speed variance (yielding EI for Tri-X) has been attained by aperture (11 +/- 1 stop).
Exposure variations are essentially Normal (incident metering), Underexposure by 1 stop, Overexposure by 1 stop (simulates EI = 400 (nominal), 200 and 800 respectively).
I was mostly interested in highlights, i.e. establish a proven exp.dev. approach to achieve reasonably expectable dynamic range while perserving highlights (as mostly controlled by development). Having said that, I intended to check how exp.development variations influence both shadows and highlights so that to be aimed for high contrast shooting without hasitation on proper exosure/development approach.
The results are summarized into Word file (a table Exp. vs. Development with images, highlight crops, etc..) (I suspect Word files cannot be attached to the message). In most cases there are differences in highlights, yet subtle to very subtle but yet discrenable under careful inspection. The images in the table are quite small, however highlighs crops sizes are enough for reasonable judgement.
On the other hand, I found ti very difficult to draw any conclusions on shadows based on small-resized crops of the original TIFF images - due to heavy resizing and small size the shadows in most cases look comletely dark on the monitor, while the original TIFF file may contain considerable details. Therefore there is no Word table to shadows comparison, but I judge them by the original TIFF files opened in PS.
I will be interested in third/forth, etc...opinion from experienced (as well as less or even novices like me) B&W shooters, their conclusions and notes, thus if you happen to be interested to see the summary, examine and respond ni the thread - please provide your email address- I'll forward you the summary Word file and shadows crops of the original test images for your judgement.
Right now, as per my judgement, the most restrained highlights (yet ighlights) are of underexposed, N-20% underdeveloped image, but the shadows of that image are nearly blocked which is not suprising. Correspondingly, the highlights of overexposed, N+20% overdeveloped image are most exposed, nearly blown, but still carry discernabel details, while its shadows are most open. This is also hardly suprizing...
Trying to fing the best trade-off, I'm contemplating between Nominally Exposed (400)/Normally developed (13 min) and Overexposed (200)/Underdeveloped (-20%). These two cases appear to offer the best "price/performance" among all the cases. There are very slight differences in shadows and also in highlights, however they appear to be reasonably small to be concerned about. It appears both approaches are nearly equal...(to my eye)...
Please let me know if you're interested to examine the results and voice your opinion or, if there is the way to attached Word file to teh thread - lease let me know...
As I mentioned earlier in my thread dealing with HC-110 dill. H - I intended to conduct a ring-around test to establish the best rocessing chain containing:
Tri-X in HC-110 dill. H at 20 deg. C, Normal development time to be considered 13 min. (twice as the one good for dill. B), destined for scanning by Nikon LS-40 film scanner in Mono, Grayscale mode, NikonScan software, 12 bit output to my particular CRT Samsung SyncMaster 997M monitor (calibrated). Agitation - first 30 second, then twice each subsequent minute (two upside down-up turns).
I realize more solid testing approach should direct to wet printing, but this is out of my reach and I need to tune my process to my particular flow.
Shot a roll of Tri-X of reasonably high contrast scene with contrast swing of 6-6.5 stops, lens 'Cron 50mm/2 (current) on M6, constant shutter speed of 1000, the film speed variance (yielding EI for Tri-X) has been attained by aperture (11 +/- 1 stop).
Exposure variations are essentially Normal (incident metering), Underexposure by 1 stop, Overexposure by 1 stop (simulates EI = 400 (nominal), 200 and 800 respectively).
I was mostly interested in highlights, i.e. establish a proven exp.dev. approach to achieve reasonably expectable dynamic range while perserving highlights (as mostly controlled by development). Having said that, I intended to check how exp.development variations influence both shadows and highlights so that to be aimed for high contrast shooting without hasitation on proper exosure/development approach.
The results are summarized into Word file (a table Exp. vs. Development with images, highlight crops, etc..) (I suspect Word files cannot be attached to the message). In most cases there are differences in highlights, yet subtle to very subtle but yet discrenable under careful inspection. The images in the table are quite small, however highlighs crops sizes are enough for reasonable judgement.
On the other hand, I found ti very difficult to draw any conclusions on shadows based on small-resized crops of the original TIFF images - due to heavy resizing and small size the shadows in most cases look comletely dark on the monitor, while the original TIFF file may contain considerable details. Therefore there is no Word table to shadows comparison, but I judge them by the original TIFF files opened in PS.
I will be interested in third/forth, etc...opinion from experienced (as well as less or even novices like me) B&W shooters, their conclusions and notes, thus if you happen to be interested to see the summary, examine and respond ni the thread - please provide your email address- I'll forward you the summary Word file and shadows crops of the original test images for your judgement.
Right now, as per my judgement, the most restrained highlights (yet ighlights) are of underexposed, N-20% underdeveloped image, but the shadows of that image are nearly blocked which is not suprising. Correspondingly, the highlights of overexposed, N+20% overdeveloped image are most exposed, nearly blown, but still carry discernabel details, while its shadows are most open. This is also hardly suprizing...
Trying to fing the best trade-off, I'm contemplating between Nominally Exposed (400)/Normally developed (13 min) and Overexposed (200)/Underdeveloped (-20%). These two cases appear to offer the best "price/performance" among all the cases. There are very slight differences in shadows and also in highlights, however they appear to be reasonably small to be concerned about. It appears both approaches are nearly equal...(to my eye)...
Please let me know if you're interested to examine the results and voice your opinion or, if there is the way to attached Word file to teh thread - lease let me know...
charjohncarter
Veteran
I would like to see the results. I am very interested. I don't know enough about file attachments to help you there. But I think you could get my email by clicking my avatar.
Santafecino
button man
Hi alexz--
This interests me too. I'll send you my direct e-mail by PM.
Have you thought about using a densitometer to identify your most appropriate film speed? In other words, shadow density is largely a factor of exposure, not development. So you just need enough density at (say) zone 1 to give some printable image. Then figure out development time from there.
I look forward to your results. For me, I shoot Tri-X at EI 200 and use HC-110 dil. B at 5 min. So I'll be looking at what corresponds to that.
--Lindsay
This interests me too. I'll send you my direct e-mail by PM.
Have you thought about using a densitometer to identify your most appropriate film speed? In other words, shadow density is largely a factor of exposure, not development. So you just need enough density at (say) zone 1 to give some printable image. Then figure out development time from there.
I look forward to your results. For me, I shoot Tri-X at EI 200 and use HC-110 dil. B at 5 min. So I'll be looking at what corresponds to that.
--Lindsay
alexz
Well-known
John, emailed you through RFF, there is no way to attach file, please provide me (just reply to my email or by PM) you email address I'll do in conventional emailling.
Lindsay, you're certainly correct, the pure approach would assume using densitometer as yuo suggested. I have no access to such, so just did it in my "eye judgment" way. Besides, since I have no access to wet printing, my flow assumes scanning and on-screen judgement (provided calibrated monitor), so what can be perfect for wet approach may not be such for scanning.
Yes, I'm aware about shadows largely dependent on exposure as a generally adopted rule, but I was willing to check and see it myself. In the test I see shadows indeed mostly dependent on exposure, albeit a little bit of development time also matters (to much lesser degree though).
I'll be sendign you an email with attachment and will be glad to hear your opinion.
Lindsay, you're certainly correct, the pure approach would assume using densitometer as yuo suggested. I have no access to such, so just did it in my "eye judgment" way. Besides, since I have no access to wet printing, my flow assumes scanning and on-screen judgement (provided calibrated monitor), so what can be perfect for wet approach may not be such for scanning.
Yes, I'm aware about shadows largely dependent on exposure as a generally adopted rule, but I was willing to check and see it myself. In the test I see shadows indeed mostly dependent on exposure, albeit a little bit of development time also matters (to much lesser degree though).
I'll be sendign you an email with attachment and will be glad to hear your opinion.
Santafecino
button man
Hi Alexz--
I looked at the pictures, and it is a very worthwhile experiment. What I see is this:
In the shadows, exposure is critical. If a shadow is underexposed, there is little hope that overdevelopment will bring it out. Most of your shadow pictures were underexposed in the shadows, and when you gave +1 overexposure, the shadows started to come out. But even then, extra development doesn't do much to bring up the shadows.
In the highlights, the density is much more sensitive to development. I could pick some that I prefer, but I am concerned that the results may have been affected by scanning somehow, possibly compensating for excessive density through some automatic adjustment (that I don't fully understand). That said, underexposure saves the highlights--but it would kill the shadows. So with normal exposure, the best results occurred with N-15% and N-20% development.
In a Master Printing Class book I read that film has an actual range of nearly 14 zones. This means that, if you have the patience, and the low-contrast filters or developer, you can get an image from a negative area exposed to zone X or XI or XII. But it is not easy. However, it is downright impossible to get an image from shadows that are underexposed. The lesson is to expose shadows to get some overall detail at zone IV, then print accordingly to bring down the shadow values.
--Lindsay
I looked at the pictures, and it is a very worthwhile experiment. What I see is this:
In the shadows, exposure is critical. If a shadow is underexposed, there is little hope that overdevelopment will bring it out. Most of your shadow pictures were underexposed in the shadows, and when you gave +1 overexposure, the shadows started to come out. But even then, extra development doesn't do much to bring up the shadows.
In the highlights, the density is much more sensitive to development. I could pick some that I prefer, but I am concerned that the results may have been affected by scanning somehow, possibly compensating for excessive density through some automatic adjustment (that I don't fully understand). That said, underexposure saves the highlights--but it would kill the shadows. So with normal exposure, the best results occurred with N-15% and N-20% development.
In a Master Printing Class book I read that film has an actual range of nearly 14 zones. This means that, if you have the patience, and the low-contrast filters or developer, you can get an image from a negative area exposed to zone X or XI or XII. But it is not easy. However, it is downright impossible to get an image from shadows that are underexposed. The lesson is to expose shadows to get some overall detail at zone IV, then print accordingly to bring down the shadow values.
--Lindsay
alexz
Well-known
Well, regarding the shadows, it migth be the matter of oru monitors interpretation (probably calibration issues), but I see the shadows are elaborated quite well on both, Normal and +1 overexposure frames. Obviously, overexposed +1 frames exhibit even a tad better shadow details, but performance of both appears to be not far frmo each other and I found the normal exposure bringing enough shadow details already. In Highlights, I see (yet again, on my particular monitor) somewhat smaller differences, yet the underdeveloped results seem to hold the details and tones a bit better (the difference appears to be not drastic but yet noticeable), however even normally developed results show off quite bearable highlight details (perhaps the contrast range of the photographer scene wasn't extreme enough to show off the advantage of underdevelopment in restraining highlights). All in all, judging from the point of best shadows/highlights trade-off, I find two approaches are to be considered in most cases:
1. +1 overexposure combined with 15-20% underdevelopment.
2. Normal exposure combined with normal development
Yet, normal exposure + underdevelopment is close enough to be considered also.
Bearing all that in mind, I'd say I tend to classify the conclusions as following:
1. When shooting entire roll of predominantly high contrast (6-7 stops) - follow the approach of 1 stop overrexposure and and 15-20% underdevelopment
2. Having shot a mixed roll containing both high-contrast and mid range scenes - pick normal exp. normal development approach.
3. Shooting entire roll of low-contrast scenic - choose underexposure (by up to 1 stop) and overdevelopment by 20-30%.
Yet I'm not sure in the latter one, bearing in mind my specific scanning flow, I guess extending the dynamic range (contrast) in the post-processing might pay off better then doing that in shooting/processing. In such case, low-contrast stuff will also be classified into second category.
1. +1 overexposure combined with 15-20% underdevelopment.
2. Normal exposure combined with normal development
Yet, normal exposure + underdevelopment is close enough to be considered also.
Bearing all that in mind, I'd say I tend to classify the conclusions as following:
1. When shooting entire roll of predominantly high contrast (6-7 stops) - follow the approach of 1 stop overrexposure and and 15-20% underdevelopment
2. Having shot a mixed roll containing both high-contrast and mid range scenes - pick normal exp. normal development approach.
3. Shooting entire roll of low-contrast scenic - choose underexposure (by up to 1 stop) and overdevelopment by 20-30%.
Yet I'm not sure in the latter one, bearing in mind my specific scanning flow, I guess extending the dynamic range (contrast) in the post-processing might pay off better then doing that in shooting/processing. In such case, low-contrast stuff will also be classified into second category.