Some advice needed, please! (Overexposure)

[rbiemer]

Just back from my second outing with my 4x5.
Shot HP5+, using my Wollensack 135mm and Raptar shutter.
I was shooting a stream and waterfall in the woods near me, my meter was showing about what I expected f/16 at 1/2 to 1/4 second exposures. This was incedent metered.
However, after really looking at my first shots with this lens and shutter, I'm thinking that the speeds are slow. Meaning that I've likely overexposed.

Clearly, the best option would be to either get this shutter serviced or get another lens/shutter that has a well sorted shutter. That's not going to happen for a while, so I need to adjust my metering to accommodate for the shutter as is.

And, I also should have worked this out before hand. 😱

But, I was too thrilled to find I unexpectedly had a couple hours to spare this morning...

Anyway, my decision now, for the 8 photos I took, is :
Do I process these at 400 and take my lumps?
Do I process these as 800?
Or, do I process these as 200?
I'm confusing myself here about which way to do this if I decide to alter the ISO I process for!

This was terrible practice today but I do want to get something usable from these negatives, if I can.

Castigate away, folks, I just need some clarity! 🙂

Rob

 

[Corran]

Why are you assuming the shutter is at fault? You should be able to tell by ear whether it's close or not. Process the shots normally and see what comes. Of course I usually overexpose HP5+ a little with my developer of choice...

I have a number of lenses that could use a CLA. They are usually 2/3 or half a stop slow, with the 1 second and sometimes 1/2 second sticking. I adjust the aperture to suit or in the case of the slowest speeds, use B mode and shoot manually. It's not hard to clock out a 1 or 1/2 second exposure. Unless you are shooting slides later on, absolute accuracy isn't paramount. Get a shutter speed tester if you need to figure out the exact speeds.

 

[sevo]

You should be able to HEAR if a 1/4-1/2s speed is slow! A significant overexposure would mean the times are at least two steps off, in this case, at one to two seconds. Which is something you do not even need a timer for.

 

[rbiemer]

Good points, Corran and sevo!
The "sanity check" was helpful. 🙂
My daylight tank will hold four sheets at a time, so I think I will run the first four at 400 and look at those before running the other four.

This shot in particular is one I'm hoping I didn't screw up. (taken on my phone using Viewfinder Mark II:
Tinker's Falls by rbiemer, on Flickr

Rob

 

[Corran]

Having shot in deep woods a lot, I normally would be considering a pull on the development in that kind of dappled lighting. HP5 is pretty forgiving though - I usually shoot TMX for landscapes which will blow-out in the highlights if not careful. I'm sure you'll be fine. Good luck!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Rob,

Ain't gonna matter. A stop extra or even two will give you better shadow detail.

Almost no B+W films will blow the highlights at a stop or two over with any sane development regime, though cheap scanners may fail to penetrate the darker parts of the negative.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Corran]

Okay, let me rephrase - the highlights become harder and/or more troublesome to burn down in the darkroom, especially with TMX which seems to build highlight contrast quickly if not careful. Been there.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Okay, let me rephrase - the highlights become harder and/or more troublesome to burn down in the darkroom, especially with TMX which seems to build highlight contrast quickly if not careful. Been there.

Fair enough.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rbiemer]

The first batch are in their final wash as of now. Haven't peeked, yet but I will post scans once I've done those--likely tomorrow morning after the negs dry.

Took a brief pause to hang the negs to dry and they...look like negatives. 🙂
I don't have a particularly good scanning set up, yet, but have a couple different options to use for now. Will have a much better sense of how these turned out later tonight or tomorrow morning once they are dry and I can really look at them.

Thank you all for the reassurances, it is much appreciated!

Rob

 

[rbiemer]

Added several different scans of the negative see here:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/rob_biemer/p02nq3

Not a great photo, but a decent negative. And I am going to need to spend the time and probably some $ to get a better scanning system in place.

And, I notice, the "Viewfinder Mark II" is a very aproximate rendition of 135mm lens on 4x5. Had the phone app set for a 135mm lens and that phone pic is rather wider than what I actually got on the negatives.

Still, pretty happy with the four photos I developed. The other four from this morning I will process tomorrow--once my daylight tank dries.

Rob

 

[x-ray]

It's hard to determine much about your negs from scans. Scanners / software / operators introduce adjustment. You really have to see the negative like on a light box.

Before I bought a new scanner I'd get a better lens with a more accurate shutter. Bad negs with a good scanner still produce bad scans. This should be your list of priorities; Lens with accurate shutter, calibrate your meter or get an accurate one if yours, profile your monitor, better scanner. A good end product depends on all of the above in that order. Everything starts with a good neg.

 

[esearing]

My daylight tank will hold four sheets at a time, so I think I will run the first four at 400 and look at those before running the other four.n Rob

Your tank will also hold just one sheet - take two shots, process the first, adjust development for the second if needed, until you are comfortable with lens shutter, process, and desired outcome of the negative.

 

[rbiemer]

It's hard to determine much about your negs from scans. Scanners / software / operators introduce adjustment. You really have to see the negative like on a light box.

Before I bought a new scanner I'd get a better lens with a more accurate shutter. Bad negs with a good scanner still produce bad scans. This should be your list of priorities; Lens with accurate shutter, calibrate your meter or get an accurate one if yours, profile your monitor, better scanner. A good end product depends on all of the above in that order. Everything starts with a good neg.

x-ray,
I agree about the order you've suggested. I actually do have a good loupe and a light panel. The negs I got yesterday are decent. If I were set up for wet printing or making contact prints, I'm confident I'd be able to get a decent print from this one.

For now, I need to concentrate on the "taking" side of this, I expect to be setting up a wet darkroom in the spring--I fervently hope and plan!--for now, I am stuck with a hybrid process. Of the different versions/scans I posted in that flikr album, the one that seems to me to be the best representative of the negative is the one I "scanned" with my digital camera. I also backed the kickstarter for the phone scanning app but that is not really intended for 4x5 and I've had some technical oddness (which I will be posting in the thread about the app later ).

First next step for me is saving my nickels toward a better lens/shutter. Meanwhile, I am learning the mechanics of my camera, trying to settle into a consistent practice--making sure I've got all the bits in the pack before I head out, seeing what I may want to photograph, metering consistently, taking good notes. In otherwords, all the "stuff" that I usually think about but that I have also done long enough that I can concentrate on the important thing(what do I want to get on the negative) with my 35mm set up.

Your tank will also hold just one sheet - take two shots, process the first, adjust development for the second if needed, until you are comfortable with lens shutter, process, and desired outcome of the negative.

Eventually, maybe, but for now I need to keep the processing as consistent as I can. For me, I need to learn one method thoroughly before I move onto the more intricate ways of processing. I am a chef by trade and the way that I best learn a new recipe--or cuisine--is by starting out making the new recipe as written. Once I've gained competence and familiarity, I can start thinking about changes that will get me what I want on the plate.


Rob

 

[Dwig]

...
Clearly, the best option would be to either get this shutter serviced or get another lens/shutter that has a well sorted shutter....

"Best" is a value judgement so only you can decide what is best, but there is a 3rd option that might be a challenger.

Get the shutter tested, or test it yourself, to see if the speeds are consistent. If they are then you only need to create a conversion table listing marked speeds vs their actual speeds.

That's not going to happen for a while, so I need to adjust my metering to accommodate for the shutter as is.

No, no, no, no!! That will never ever work reliably, period. There is no likelihood that the timing error at all speeds is the same. As a result, you can't fix it with a metering adjustment, except by having a separate adjustment for each marked shutter speed and the conversion table approach is a vastly better approach.

For years I used a collection of lenses of widely varying vintage on my 4x5. It was a simple matter of placing a small label on each lensboard that had a table of marked vs actual shutter speeds. Each shutter had its own quirks so each had its own table. True, I had the luxury of having a decent shutter speed tester at work (I ran a camera store and was the used equipment buyer) so I could test the shutters periodically. Before we bought the tester for the used equp. dept. I visited the local repair shop that we used and they were happy to run a test and list the actual speeds for me.

 

[retinax]

There is yet another option: If you're not extremely ham-fisted, you can service the shutter yourself. If it's not an expensive specimen, it would be worth a try. At least cleaning the shutter blades and the slow speed escapement isn't usually very difficult. Testing it afterwards is still a good idea. But if it's gummed up with old lubricants, a conversion table might not work so reliably at all, especially in colder temperatures these problems usually get worse.

 

[x-ray]

Dwig is correct that you can't adjust ISO to compensate for your meter. As he mentioned shutter speed error varies from one speed to another. I sound like a broken record but in the end you're wasting a lot of money on film that's not exposed properly and won't yield a good end result. At the cost of 4x5 HP5 it won't take long to pay for a good and properly working lens.

Here's a suggestion for printing. Get three 5x7 trays, a piece of 8x10 single thickness glass from a frame shop, 7-1/2 watt light bulb, some paper and chemicals and start contact printing. It was good enough for Edward Weston and a lot of the old timers.

I have several small contacts on my wall. One is "Triangles" by Imogene Cunningham which is 3x4 and have a 5x7 Lewis Hine of the Russian steel workers at Carnegie Steel. Another is a 4x5 contact of Betty Page. I have several 4x5 platinum images by Kim Weston the grandson of Edward. I love small intimate prints.

Just a thought.