TareqPhoto
The Survivor
i was asking that if i shoot it at 1600, then should i develop it for 1600 or develop it for 3200? i think each has certain time, but i have to start somewhere anyway, so if i will develop at 1600 then i will try the given time and go from there, if i develop as 3200 also i have to check the given or starting recommended time and go from there, i can't just pick anytime from my head and do it, it may work or may not but it is always better for me as a beginner to start with the manufacturer's time given and then see if the results are matching my expectations or not, and about contrast or so in fact i don't give contrast or grain much interest, i care just to get the pic out of the rolls, and i do scan, with scanning i can tweak sharpness a bit and also contrast.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
What I mean is beyond the need of your own testing...
If a scene has a very low contrast (let's say under dark gray overcast before rain), and another scene has more contrast (in the shadows on a sunny day) and you meter both at 1600, each one requires a different development: the first one requires a longer one... So it doesn't depend just on an ISO you want to choose: it depends on the real scene's contrast...
But if you want to do things the right way, you should find first the real film speed, and a development time for that real speed... Then you can try longer development times for pushing (low light / low contrast scenes).
For real printing (wet / fiber paper) the way to check if a negative is well exposed and developed, is making a contact or a print at an enlarger time that produces a near pure black negative base: then your image should look perfect... Not too dark / too light, nor too flat / too contrasty... When you see a print at the time base starts to reach pure black, you can easily see if the exposure was OK, and if the development was OK... That's the best way to fine tune optimal ISOs and development times... And different enlargers and printing methods require different contrast on negatives.
Generally, recommended times are a bit short because they're a starting point for testing and because too much contrast is more a problem than low contrast...
If you scan you should care about contrast even more, because scanners get blocked highlights easier than wet prints...
Take a look at the third chapter Exposure, on Ansel Adams' "The Negative".
Cheers,
Juan
If a scene has a very low contrast (let's say under dark gray overcast before rain), and another scene has more contrast (in the shadows on a sunny day) and you meter both at 1600, each one requires a different development: the first one requires a longer one... So it doesn't depend just on an ISO you want to choose: it depends on the real scene's contrast...
But if you want to do things the right way, you should find first the real film speed, and a development time for that real speed... Then you can try longer development times for pushing (low light / low contrast scenes).
For real printing (wet / fiber paper) the way to check if a negative is well exposed and developed, is making a contact or a print at an enlarger time that produces a near pure black negative base: then your image should look perfect... Not too dark / too light, nor too flat / too contrasty... When you see a print at the time base starts to reach pure black, you can easily see if the exposure was OK, and if the development was OK... That's the best way to fine tune optimal ISOs and development times... And different enlargers and printing methods require different contrast on negatives.
Generally, recommended times are a bit short because they're a starting point for testing and because too much contrast is more a problem than low contrast...
If you scan you should care about contrast even more, because scanners get blocked highlights easier than wet prints...
Take a look at the third chapter Exposure, on Ansel Adams' "The Negative".
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Mamiya &, Delta 3200 at 2400 iso in Barry Thornton's 2-bath formula and left to develop for 8 minutes vs normal 4-5 minutes.
sam_m
Well-known
Exposure compensation only applies to automatic exposure metering, you are not compensating the film, you are compensating the exposure meter.
If you're using a 501c/m, rz, holga or anything else manual/mechanical, then I presume you're using a handheld exposure meter, so you just set the film speed on the meter to what ever you want, 1600, 3200, etc.
Does that make sense?
Last edited:
TareqPhoto
The Survivor
The problem is that if i use light meter and suddenly i need to use so long exposure and i don't have a cable release even i use a tripod, then for some reasons i feel i have to use higher ISO speed than what is written to gain a bit faster shutter speed, those cameras going down to 1 sec as slowest if no "B" used, and i don't hold that shutter for long time, but in all cases, i was thinking about how can i compensate without a light meter?
And let's say i rated that film at 1600, then when i develop it, i develop it as a 1600 film or as 3200 film? because i heard about push/pull processing, so why not shoot this film at 3200 and develop it at 1600 so i pull the film this why? I just want to start somewhere, those charts have start points, i can't choose any time to start with and nothing there or did it very wrong [so over developed or way under developed], i will try to have my own optimum time but when i have to choose a start point to go with not to look at any time and do it by guess and see, i don't have many films of it to waste for tests, and i don't want to shoot something very important with it and then develop it wrong way because of time.
Vineyard_don
Member
This was Ilford 3200 taken at ISO 3200 and pushed two stops by North Coast Photo as shot with no adjustments. Night handheld street shot with a Mamiya 7II and a 65mm lens using AEL on the mid grey on the mid upper right.
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
So they developed @ 3200 or what? I love NCPS!
Vineyard_don
Member
I told them how I shot it and they said push 2 stops. I love them too.
I have used a Konica Hexar and a Fuji GA645i (both on autofocus) and the 7II gave me the best results for night street shooting. Most of the shots were at f4 and I would estimate the distance and preset the focus.
I am not a fan of the quality of the grain of Ilford 3200 so I am goung to try Tri-x 400 at 3200. I have already tried it at 1600 pushed two stops and I liked the results. Here is an example from my Fuji GA645i.
I have used a Konica Hexar and a Fuji GA645i (both on autofocus) and the 7II gave me the best results for night street shooting. Most of the shots were at f4 and I would estimate the distance and preset the focus.
I am not a fan of the quality of the grain of Ilford 3200 so I am goung to try Tri-x 400 at 3200. I have already tried it at 1600 pushed two stops and I liked the results. Here is an example from my Fuji GA645i.
Attachments
Last edited: